Yeah, but when accusations stack up over the years, it kinda points to there being a real pattern of behavior rather than just a large number of random people deciding to make things up for the fun of it.... though to people who believe they are simply trying to destroy some guy, no amount of 'proof' is enough anyway.
On the other hand, Debian governance gave us systemd.
Before blaming that on poor governance, ask yourself why that is. If you don't want to ask yourself go read the technical discussion (they were all opened) on why they went that way, as did many other distros.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.
It's actually because people keep making claims of harassment against him, but way to marginalize them.
The 'has become a distraction' argument has become nothing more than bland cover for cowards who won't stand up to cancel culture but also don't agree.
I don't stand up to cancel culture because I am not opposed to cancel culture. Conservacucks have no right to stand up to cancel culture because they invented cancel culture. I am not a coward, and I do agree. Lots of things should be cancelled.
"Cancelers" need to be called out for the shit-stains they actually are.
Conservatives cancelled alcohol and drugs. They tried to cancel heavy metal and dungeons and dragons. They cancelled thousands of black people with nooses. Now they
I agree, some cancel culture is in order. People like yourself for instance...;)
Seriously, no, no and a thousand times no! You do not get to talk about marginalizing accusations. Because accusations without a proper hearing before a judge are and will forever remain just some people throwing niceties at someone else they don't like.
Given how much it is en vogue to accuse anyone whose name is known to more than five people of misconduct, an accusation is worth NOTHING!
Obviously it must be investigated properly but until a clean investigation comes up with something establishing at least a somewhat coherent case, and accusation says nothing at all.
If you've got ten accusations you've got a better chance of the case being a valid one but even so the accusations, even if there were a million of them are worth NOTHING.
There is a very good reason most advanced societies have a judicial system and rely on due process. The system is not perfect by far but if we didn't have it, people like you would have either ruined the country or been thrown off a cliff long ago.
And now go ahead and mark me flamebait or troll because I will add that I'm kinda sad I don't get to throw you off said cliff for making society worse.
I agree, some cancel culture is in order. People like yourself for instance...;)
Go for it. That's the whole point. Freedom to disassociate is done by consensus. If you can get enough people to care, you can all cancel drinkypoo - whatever that means to you. Good luck! The judicial process is for crimes, dumbass. The freedom to say "I don't wanna work with this guy" doesn't require involvement of the justice system. Nobody is proposing that he be incarcerated for his actions and words. The stakes are not high enough and the freedoms of folks like Stallman to go do something else are not curtailed enough to warrant the time and money it costs to use the court system. Your thinking is.. small.
Freedom to disassociate is done by consensus. If you can get enough people to care, you can all cancel drinkypoo - whatever that means to you. Good luck!
You left off the part of cancel culture where people would dox dinkypoo, try to get him fired, smear him as *ist, go through his digital trash and pull out of context 10+ year old posts, and down-vote-bomb any posts he makes on any subject regardless of merit.
No, I am not supporting cancelling dinkypoo, but we need to be clear about terms of what is being suggested.
Go for it. That's the whole point. Freedom to disassociate is done by consensus. If you can get enough people to care, you can all cancel drinkypoo - whatever that means to you. Good luck!
So you must be okay with DDOS attacks, where a horde of mindless drones attack something just because they can't think for themselves?
And there is more to Cancel Culture [washingtontimes.com] than to just deciding for yourself the you don't like someone and getting your friends to dislike them as well. See, the term "cancel" is actually there because events [breitbart.com] have [reason.com] gotten cancelled [businessinsider.com]. The mentality behind this is "what the speaker is going to say is so abhorrent that NOBODY should hear them." See what they did? They made your decision for you.
"And there is more to Cancel Culture than to just deciding for yourself the you don't like someone and getting your friends to dislike them as well. See, the term "cancel" is actually there because events have gotten cancelled."
Events get canceled when they are no longer profitable. And they get canceled by corporations, not by protestors. But you are only mad at the protestors, instead of your corporate masters who make all your decisions for you.
Exactly nobody is decrying the freedom to say "I don't want to work with that guy"
What we have problem with is people who take it a few steps further. Its I won't work with YOU either unless you also refuse to work with that guy. They than act like its some high minded act on their end when its basically just school yard bullying of the "you can't be my friend and friends with Tommy" sort.
Than there are those that take it even farther than that, YOU MUST DENOUNCE such and such or be considered to be endorsing every bad action on their part, and we are going to go around insisting to everyone that you are part of some conspiracy of institutional-whatever-ism because you won't abuse your position of power to punish someone for some unrelated to your activities thing they have decided is a crime.
THAT is cancel culture and it has nothing to do with justice at all. Its about a bunch of little cowards and cry babies who think the world was unfair to them at some point finding out they can form a mob and bully others. The moment they don't have the mob behind them they shrink away. Which is why they have to build 'safe spaces' etc, because they are only brave when they know there is a nearby rock to cower under if they don't immediately get their way.
I guess that's the risk with the free market. If Brand A and Brand B are similar enough, but Brand A supports clubbing baby seals then the customers can move to Brand B. You as a customer can make that choice, and if enough people do, then Brand A might see that it's more profitable to not support clubbing baby seals any more. It's not about justice or "safe spaces" (whatever that means), it's about organizations matching their policies up with their customers/users.
Whoever doesn't "want to work with this guy" is free to to quit. It's when somebody tries to quit you because they don't want to work with you that things get unfair, and you realise that principles of a judicial system should apply.
The reality is that while I'm polarizing, and may be an acquired taste, I have twice as many fans as foes. I ain't gettin' cancelled unless they use the system they claim to abhor and have me swatted.
Being part of the brain damaged angry mob has always proven to be popular throughout history. You don't think you wouldn't be cancelled in a heartbeat if someone selected some of the less refined snippets of your old posts and posted them out of context? Losing your career and reputation is no biggy though right?
"You don't think you wouldn't be cancelled in a heartbeat if someone selected some of the less refined snippets of your old posts and posted them out of context?"
It has been done more than once and I'M STILL HERE.
I have NEVER treated Slashdot like a popularity contest. I have ALWAYS spoken my mind. I've been here a long time despite people trying to cancel me continuously. People abuse moderation against me constantly and many are often trying to make me look bad with old comments.
I see in another comment you describe yourself as a high functioning aspergers. I think you are slightly less high functioning than you imagine.
The bit you're missing here is that someone can act very unpleasantly, and make people not want to have anything to do with them, but for their behaviour to not be criminal offence.
Stallman has repeatedly done stuff that makes people not want to have anything to do with him. He's been told specific parts of his behaviour are unpleasant. He, like you, thinks that if he isn't breaking a law, he's allowed to continue that behaviour. He can, but at the same time, that means that some people don't want anything to do with him.
At some point the people running a project need to decide who they want to include and who they want to exclude.
Should they keep a guy who is a creep, and refuses to listen to feedback as to why his behaviour is unpleasant, or do they want to keep everyone else who doesn't want to have anything to do with him?
There's a game theory aspect, where you say that he may be a creep, but the only safe and consistent response to the cancel mob is to refuse any of their demands. If the FSF board manages to show the strength to ignore the mob, the mob loses all future power over them. The reason they're so shrill and frantic about this issue is that they've been consistently acquiesced to in the open source world. They don't want that power to slip out of their grasp.
the only safe and consistent response to the cancel mob is to refuse any of their demands.
I wonder what precisely is your definition of "the cancel mob"?
(1) "cancel mob" is anyone who says that RMS shouldn't be in a leadership position (2) there are some reasonable people who say RMS shouldn't be in a leadership position and it's fine to listen to them, but other people who say that RMS shouldn't be in a leadership position and they're the cancel mob and we should ignore them (3) "cancel mob" is anyone who thinks that no actions short of illegal ones should disqualify someone from leadership posit
At some point the people running a project need to decide who they want to include and who they want to exclude.
They did. After his resignation, they apparently realized that allowing him to go was a mistake. So now he's back. They have decided.
This has really annoyed the woke progressives, because it calls into question their ability to infiltrate and dominate organizations through sheer intimidation. I hope and trust that the FSF will stay true to this decision, and keep Stallman despite external pressure.
Organizations like OSI that have condemned his return? I do believe we have found a way to identify which organizations have already been infiltrated.
Most of the people that built society were complete creeps or assholes that nobody wanted anything to do with. That doesn't mean that their success should afford them to get away with whatever they want but the people who tend to be successful aren't usually the same people worried about being liked by everyone.
and refuses to listen to feedback as to why his behaviour is unpleasant
Unpleasant to whom? Everyone? Or a small group of very vocal people with very focused
I'm not sure you should be accusing people of not being functioning if you can't tell the difference between deciding not to associate with someone and joining a mob calling for someone's professional career to be ended without so much as even a claim they did something illegal let alone a trial.
I agree that the accusations against Stallman should be heard in court.
However, credible accusations have legs even without a day in court.
Stallman himself has made these accusations credible [wired.com], e.g. with his pleasure cards offering tender embraces being handed out at official events.
I note that that link doesn't show the card which is actually and clearly a fairly simple joke business card (and which he handed to everyone, not just women).
It's perfectly reasonable to hand those out at gatherings where you're not a person of influence.
Or where, you know, people actually look at it in context and have a laugh.
When you add to that his apparent endorsement of men in power taking advantage of young women on specious grounds (how the young women were "presented", as if that were relevant) he's really dealt himself the hand he's got to play.
Again, that's not really what's going on. He was asked about how he felt about the accusations against Minsky (which turned out to be nonsense) and in his friend's defence said that Minsky would probably not have known what was going on since the woman's handlers would have ordered her to present herself as un-coerced.
I'd love to hear what you think is the problem with that. It seems like you're trying to introduce legislation about "decent" age gaps in relationships or something. It's hard to tell since even the woman in question said that Minsky turned her down. You seem confused about human relationships generally.
If credible accusations [medium.com] were made against me, I'd expect to have to answer them.
Given that these accusations appear credible enough, I'd expect Stallman to have to answer them. He doesn't appear terribly interested in doing that, and this sure doesn't cut it [lwn.net]. That also makes the accusations seem more credible.
Not being interested in wasting time answering bullshit accusations about things that didn't happen does not transform lies and innuendo into facts.
People keep saying that as if it's some kind of defence. It doesn't matter what the gender of the person receiving it is, it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
Culture changes over time, you can't stop that happening.
People have been making this complaint for centuries, millennia probably.
Much of it is the inevitable result of society getting more liberal. For example when it was illegal to be gay there were not many people calling out homophobia. Once it became legal people had to learn what stuff was homophobic, so were are right to say that there are more rules now because we went from one (homosexuality is illegal) to many (there are many forms of homophobia).
That culture changes over time (and space) should be an argument for toleration.
We ought to be able to realize that maybe it isn't always great when a hegemonic culture imposes their norms and customs as the only moral option.
A few years ago there was, for a very brief time, an ethnicity manipulation filter in the face editing app FaceApp.
There is a cultural taboo against "blackface" in the US, for understandable historical reasons, and to portray someone of another "race" than they are is seen as deeply offensive. That's seen as self evident to you, but still not to most people on this planet. Most of the world don't have or even know this historical context. Probably, most dark-skinned people on the planet would not even know what they were supposed to be offended at in this app.
The Russian dev clearly didn't know about this cultural taboo, because you can't doubt his desire to respect his audience: it wasn't even available for a full day. He pulled it and apologized as soon as he saw the first negative reaction.
Maybe that's good. Maybe we should respect other cultures' taboos to some degree, like the apostle Paul who declared that there was nothing inherently wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols (a big taboo in his native Jewish culture) but that he would go all-out vegetarian if you seriously thought there was, to not undermine your conscience.
But MAYBE we shouldn't let upper class Americans decide for the whole world what to tolerate and what to not tolerate, damnit.
People keep saying that as if it's some kind of defence.
It changes the tone.
It doesn't matter what the gender of the person receiving it is, it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
Have you seen the card? It's a simple joke. If it consisted simply of the words "For tender embraces, call this number" then you might have a bit of an argument, but it doesn't say that.
Why does no one get bent about the offer of good food or exotic music that appear on the card? Why does no one mention that the text is followed by "unusual sense of humour"?
Because that would spoil the fake outrage and make it obvious that the card is a joke that no one could possibly claim was serious.
Good food and exotic music are stuff people share with platonic friends and business acquaintances. In fact they are a pretty common excuse to go expense a nice meal on the company credit card.
Tender embraces are things people in intimate relationships have, necessitating as they do very close physical contact.
Good food and exotic music are stuff people share with platonic friends and business acquaintances. In fact they are a pretty common excuse to go expense a nice meal on the company credit card.
Tender embraces are things people in intimate relationships have, necessitating as they do very close physical contact.
Yes - it's called comedy contrast.
I don't believe you honestly think the card was offensive; I don't believe anyone does. It's a non-issue, but I have played Illuminati enough to understand the concept of a whispering campaign.
I'll be the devil's advocate, but why would it be inappropriate to offer someone a "tender embrace" if the person is free to refuse? It's not like he is pressuring anyone to accept the "tender embrace", or asking for a "tender embrace" over and over again, which would be only then considered harassment.
Also there is nothing sexual in a "tender embrace" per se. A tender embrace is a hug, people give hugs in variety of situations. Do you find the people giving away "free hugs" creepy? Do you find them creepy
People who go to work or professional events generally aren't there to hook up. For women there is also the additional risk that the guy takes rejection badly.
He was asked about how he felt about the accusations against Minsky (which turned out to be nonsense) and in his friend's defense said that Minsky would probably not have known what was going on since the woman's handlers would have ordered her to present herself as un-coerced. I'd love to hear what you think is the problem with that.
I'm not the person you're addressing but I can tell you my problem with that. RMS said that the most plausible explanation was that the girl presented as willing. The only argument he provided for this claim was the assertion that if she weren't, then Epstein would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that. What I think the most plausible explanation is that she wasn't willing, and presented as such in various ways, and no one around her even cared about consent or mutual respect or how she presente
"was asked about how he felt about the accusations against Minsky (which turned out to be nonsense) and in his friend's defence said that Minsky would probably not have known what was going on since the woman's handlers would have ordered her to present herself as un-coerced."
The accusations against Minsky have NOT been shown to be nonsense. But that is not the core issue here.
The very reason why Stallman has proven that he has his head too far up his own ass to serve as a representative of the FSF is that
I note that that link doesn't show the card which is actually and clearly a fairly simple joke business card (and which he handed to everyone, not just women).
Oh thank god. Here I was worried that a joke that is offensive to one sex was only being made with that sex. I'm sure the women are sooo relieved that the men are in on the joke too.
I don't stand up to cancel culture because I am not opposed to cancel culture. Conservacucks have no right to stand up to cancel culture because they invented cancel culture. I am not a coward, and I do agree. Lots of things should be cancelled.
You are fucking coward, you know you are fucking coward. You go along with the whims of the mob today because it makes you feel powerful; that is it. You have no thoughts of your own, just bullshit others have put in your head.
Conservatives cancelled alcohol and drugs.
HAHAH funny, nobody would have described the temperance movement as conservative when it happened. Classic progressive gas-lighting right there. Yes conservatives eventually embraced it because turns out progressives were somewhat correct about that one, drugs are bad for society.
They cancelled thousands of black people with nooses
This person needs to learn history. The KKK in the south was run by a bunch of Democrats. Heck the entire south was. It was the Republicans under Abraham Lincoln that fought the civil war and freed the slaves. It was the southern Democrats that tried to filibuster the civil rights bill. The longest filibuster in U.S. history was 75 days and “took place in 1964, when Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act.”
So in your opinion, those historical democrats do not embrace or embody the values of the republican party today. Can you point out some efforts by the modern-day GOP to improve civil rights or increase freedom for our citizens?
I am not a coward, and I do agree. Lots of things should be cancelled.
Why is that?
Conservatives cancelled alcohol and drugs. They tried to cancel heavy metal and dungeons and dragons.
10 PRINT "Wrong + Wrong != Right" 20 GOTO 10
Cancel culture is what self-entitled little bitches call freedom of association and effective protest. You see other people's views which conflict with your own being successful and you can see the writing on the wall for your position of privilege. And you're terrified. You're the coward.
There is a difference between building consensus for a position and forcing your views upon others. Those supporting cancel culture typically couch their perspective as the former asserting they are merely expressing themselves when in fact they are doing the latter.
One could for example advocate for healthy eating by building consensus for people to choose to eat healthy. Or one could go around assembling mobs to make lots of noise and boycott the pr
They cancelled thousands of black people with nooses.
No offense, and I am NOT a conservative (I’m more liberal than 99% of people who call themselves liberal), but when I read this kind of self-congratulatory stuff, it always strikes me as insincere.
Democrats fought a war to preserve slavery. The Democrats birthed the KKK. They pursued eugenics for much of the 20th century. A Democratic President snubbed Jesse Owens. More Democrats opposed the civil rights act than Republicans. Dems opposed the ERA. Hell, they had an ex Grand Wizard in Congress well into the 00s. Hilary was anti-gay-marriage well into her 60s, yet, you probably voted for her. Obama was publicly against it both times he ran, and you probably voted for him. These same Dems turned around and boycotted the poorest, blackest state in the union for holding the exact same position as the people they elected President.
60% of corruption convictions are against Democrats. Most high-profile police shooting of unarmed blacks have occurred in Dem regions. Few, if any, laws were passed to curtail it. NY is the sole exception.
Your chosen group is not who you pretend that they are, and your self-image is not genuine.No amount of modding people Trolls or Flamebait is going to change that. It’ll just make you feel better, which is really the point of all of this.
Both groups are pretty messed up, and Dems have an abysmal record on human rights. Look at black incarceration rates and living standards since Democrats started pretending to care about minorities. It’s atrocious.
As long as you spend your life pointing fingers at others, it will likely never change.
Just because they did something it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. It wasn't right back then and it isn't right now. If everyone stood by their beliefs instead of playing tit-for-tat and blaming the other side, the world would be a much better place to live in.
Of course. People should not be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with, unless there is a very good reason. Taking away people's freedom of speech so that they can't even criticise something is never okay either.
Yeah, I know. All those anti-abortion conservative christians backing Biden and pissed off about Trump stacking the supreme court on his way out the door are just really getting to me.
Oh wait, you're ridiculous and there are just as many, if not more, religious conservatives today as there was 40 years ago.
They did, that is why democrats are trying to ban abortion and republicans are trying to make abortion mandatory for everyone at least once per lifetime.
That or people don't like to take honest looks at who they associate with and instead find a big bad for all their problems.
Yes evangelicals flipped. Temperance was a progressive movement. Abolition was an evangelical led progressive movement. Not all progress is bad! However moving to fast and not evaluating the results critically and carefully is!
The entire notion of individual liberties was pretty 'progressive' by the standards of the mid 18th Century. Real conservatives are not afraid of change, but they do hold certain core ideals are not subject to change, and prioritize results over appearances.
Democratic progressives were the party of the KKK, Stalin and Mao. Republican conservatives are the party of Lincoln and the civil rights bills.
Idiot conservatives like to spout things like this while ignoring the fact that the parties effectively exchanged platforms starting in the earl 1900, completing in the late 1960s. History is not your friend.
Democratic progressives were the party of the KKK, Stalin and Mao. Republican conservatives are the party of Lincoln and the civil rights bills. You should look into the actual belief system of actual libertarians before spouting historically incorrect bullcrap.
Reality does not support your claims and is a ridiculous statement. The KKK and Neo Nazi's that protested a few years ago in Charlottesville, Virginia were not there supporting Hillary Clinton and Universal Healthcare. The KKK and Neo Nazi's that stormed the capital building on January 6th were not there to support Joe Biden and Women's Rights. As for Stalin and Mao, both have been dead for a long time and the countries they lead are very different today, for better or for worse. Everyone, including Democratic Progressives agree that the political systems they promoted, failed and should not be repeated.
Republicans used to be the party of Lincoln and the civil rights bills.
Now they are the party of Trump and out competing each other to be more Trumpy, and voter rights restrictions and rollbacks because they just figured out that saying "no" to literally everything when a guy from the other party is in the White House isn't something that really excites voters as much as being FOR something. So instead of coming up with policies and ideas that energize people to vote for them, they've decided to change voting rules at the state level to make it harder for people that won't vote for them to vote at all.
Republicans used to be for fiscal responsibility, but now are only for fiscal responsibility when in the minority as an excuse to block any bill that moves. They have no problem with $4+T budgets with a trillion dollars of deficit built in being suggested by a president with an (R) after his name, but as soon as that letter changes to a (D) they can't stop talking about tax-and-spend bills, running up the national debt, etc. Never mind that the debt is being run up by their own misguided 2017 tax cuts which just double down on the same failed trickle-down economics that has never actually materialized in 40 years of trying.
Republicans used to actually give a damn about personal responsibility, but now are only for personal responsibility when they don't like the person they want to be responsible. If it's one of their own, then it's "cancel culture." For example, we were hearing a lot of crying about Governor Cuomo in New York and how Democrats weren't quick enough to denounce him and suggest resignation for alleged sexual harassment; where is the rush on resignation and denunciation for Matt Gaetz for alleged sex trafficking, statutory rape, illegal drug use, and solicitation of an underage girl among other tasteless and reprehensible behaviors reported?
Republicans used to be the party of "Law and Order" until those laws became inconvenient to holding on to power. Now, the leader of the Republican Party, otherwise known as the only citizen of Florida to be impeached twice, is likely to end the year under multiple criminal indictments, and with several subpoenas served to him to be deposed in multiple civil suits ranging from the violence at the Capitol on 6 January to sexual harassment claims, tax fraud, violation of state election laws, and campaign finance violations including something just reported that sounds a whole lot like bank fraud [nytimes.com] resulting in the return of donations at 5x the rate as the Biden campaign. And what was this money used for? Paying off campaign debt from the campaign that was just lost (and, by the way, what happened to the billionaire candidate self-funding?), and not legal defense or "stopping the steal" or whatever bullshit that was being sold to the donors.
Republicans, by and large, used to be respectable. Now they are flailing about with culture wars, bloviating about Mr. Potatohead and Dr. Seuss trying to find anything that will stick as a wedge issue in order to stay relevant, rather than going the way of the Federalists and Whigs. They've even managed to piss off corporate donors who used to be inseparable from the GOP. Any attempt to try to make our society even a bit more egalitarian results in a refrain about "cancel culture" and "leftist extremism" because the only wrench left in the toolbox is fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
This isn't the Republican Party we need in order to keep the more extreme actors in both parties in check. This is a party that has been taken over by the extreme actors, and then accuses the Democratic Party of the same. These guys are populist windbags in public, and then authoritarian wannabe oligarchs in private who see treating people with dignity and respect as weakness, where compromise should be avoided at all costs, and have no problems with lying and hypocrisy. And if they don't cut the cancer out fast, all that will be left are the tumors.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.
Yes, let's deal with this problem by changing the rest of the world world. If we change everyone else but Stallman, Stallman needn't change.
RMS isn't just some hacker churning out code, for decades he has been a politician. That's not a put-down, he has made his most important contributions as a political thinker and leader. As someone with a wacky hacker persona he also gets some slack cut, but it's not *unlimited* slack. This is not a new problem for public figures; the Bible ascribes these sayings to King Solomon: "Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues." and "Those who guard their mouths and their tongues keep themselves from calamity."
Knowing when to keep your mouth shut and the persona dialed off is a basic requirement for a political leader.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.....
I personally think that Stallman, left to his own devices, would have destroyed the whole concept of Free Software decades ago. It was only in spite of him and because of the heroic efforts of many others (Torvalds, Perens, and Raymond were notable) that we are where we are today. In spite of his undoubted technical brilliance and moral insights, he has been more of an obstacle to progress than an actual constructive force for literally decades.
In the very early period of Linux he was actively attacking the whole concept as necessary, as the Hurd was technically superior and right around the corner. Later on he made his cheesy attempt to co-opt the efforts of others, first by branding "Linux" as "Lignux" and then advocating for "GNU/Linux". To me this was nothing more than a lame attempt to take credit for the considerable efforts of others, in particular when they had accomplished something (building a totally free and working operating system kernel) that he most obviously could not.
Personal story: in the early 90's (pre-linux) I offered to contribute on GCC. This involved tedious weeks of missed phone calls and voice mails, and I flew at my own expense from Seattle to Boston to meet with the Great Man.
He blew off the meeting.
A few years later I reached out again, and in a phone conference call where he finally bothered to show up he shut down the whole idea hard in the first three minutes. Keep in mind that I was offering to contribute to GCC without pay and under the terms of the GPL.
By that time, I could make whatever contributions to Linux I wanted, Linus and Alan Cox would answer emails, and as opposed to Stallman they seemed genuinely interested in the contributions of others and in fact encouraged them. In Stallman's vision only fully vetted coders who met his high standards would be permitted to contribute.
Maybe it isn't fair for me to judge him so harshly on his piss-poor behavior over 25 years ago, but he established to me that he is a High Artist of Assholery and is ill-suited for any kind of leadership position in any organization, and especially so in an organization that needs to encourage people to contribute their time and ideas in the furtherance of a cause, however noble. I think the more recent Epstein/Minsky crap and his well-known history of creeping on women are just more bricks in a pretty considerable wall.
Just to defend the GNU/Linux thing, without those GNU tools building a usable OS that attracted other developers to work on it would have been much harder. Most people tried to leverage commercial tools like compilers and general software, e.g. by creating an OS compatible with some other one.
GNU really unlocked a lot of possibilities back then.
Where in the GPL does it say I have to modify the name of my project if it uses some other project?
Also, consider Linus' opinion on the naming - Redhat Linux is fine, because Redhat Distributes it. Same with Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware et al. He's ok with GNU/Linux - IF it is in fact a GNU-made distribution of Linux. (see Revolution OS for the exact quote, but it is very similar to what I've typed). Since then Debian has called itself "Debian GNU/Linux", but as I asked, where in the GPL does it require me
Just to defend the GNU/Linux thing, without those GNU tools building a usable OS that attracted other developers to work on it would have been much harder. Most people tried to leverage commercial tools like compilers and general software, e.g. by creating an OS compatible with some other one.
GNU really unlocked a lot of possibilities back then.
Agreed, but in context with his earlier dismissal of Linux and the later attempt to get it called LiGNUx it was pretty damned obvious that this was 99% obnoxious arrogance (or arrogant obnoxiousness) and about 1% giving credit where credit was due.
I freely admit that my own personal dealings with Stallman, as limited as they were (and I doubt he even remembers me) color my view of him. But at least my views are based on some (limited) first-hand experience and not projection -- which I think the vast major
Then object to his governance by his competency, not for some unfounded sexual misconduct allegations. I would support your objection if this is the case.
Now that there is a sizable amount of people who share your desired outcome (oust the guy), you come out and say "oh I've always wanted to fire him but you guys have given me the perfect excuse, even if the excuse is vague and ambiguous. This proves he is a horrible human being and he must be ousted." Don't you find this disingenuous?
No, I don't.
In the real world people get fired all the time for cumulative bad conduct and cumulative screwups. You seem to be arguing that decision processing on someone's employment status should somehow be stateless and that not doing so is wrong.
If you've ever employed people for any length of time you've certainly had a situation with a problematic employee where one day some new information comes to your attention and that employee has to go from "problematic" to "fired". That's part of having peopl
is a terrible argument, but what I've read about Stallman's behavior doesn't look good. From what I can tell he was hitting on anything with a pulse and doing it in a professional and Academic setting. To the point where he was handing out "Pleasure Cards" and one women put ferns he was known to dislike in her office so he'd leave her alone long after she made it clear she wasn't interested.
The problem here is that with Stalman's position of power he should be extra careful hitting on girls. To be blunt
The "pleasure cards," have been distributed equally to men and women. That means either they do not have the sexual undertones that the mob thinks they have, or that RMS is universally horny, which should make him a SJW hero, as he was trying to hit on everything that moves, regardless of gender.
From what I can tell he was hitting on anything with a pulse and doing it in a professional and Academic setting. To the point where he was handing out "Pleasure Cards" Yes. "Pleasure cards" - has an unprofessional look, inappropriate behavior for school staff in an academic setting, for sure. That is the extent of it -- it is problematic conduct which is concerning and may foreshadow other behaviors that would actually be bad, But not Evil or an "offense" justifying discipline beyond the organizati
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.
RMS is a poor leader outside of this crap. Look at the decline of the GPL, the one thing which is his original work, his actual accomplishment. Look at the increased disuse of the GPL, in 2020 it accounts for only 24% of projects (down from 39% in 2016) while the more permissive licenses account for 61%. If you look at GPL v3 specifically it only 10%, half the customers rejecting the upgrade and sticking with the older model, v2. That's quite the loss under RMS' leadership. So does the FSF deserve the best and most effective leadership available or is just a plaything for RMS?
Some argue that the tech world has changed, corporations are more involved in open source. Yes, the world evolved, the FSF did not. That's the point. The skill set of the founder of an organization is different than the skill set of someone who leads an organization from a market primarily composed of early adopters to a market primarily composed of the public at large. Founders of an company/organizations often have to be replaced due to this.
Failure to adapt, something that dooms companies and organizations every day. If we can say IBM had poor leadership and failed to adapt and is a shadow of its former self, why can we not say the same of the FSF under RMS leadership? Why can we not say RMS exhibited poor leadership and hurt his organization, just like IBM executives exhibited poor leadership and hurt their company?
Right, personally deciding not to continue endorsing a brand is the same as essentially running them out of town. Oh wait it isn't. Those politicians are not out there telling everyone not buy Coke. They are not out there passing trap laws to shut down Cokes business. They just are not providing advertising for them any more.
Once again the gas-lighting continues. You are pretending merely choosing not associate with actively threatening others who continue to associate they way the cancelers do. Its not th
Why would I want to associate with people who associate with the thing I don't want to associate with?
That seems counterproductive to my protest in the first place?
For example, I do not make friends with Trump supporters. That class of person is not something I want to be associated with. That's not threatening them, that is identifying and removing bigots from my life.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I find the idea that you've given up on trying to find common ground with 80 million Americans pretty sad. Everyone on the planet came to their current beliefs due to their genetics and experiences. Maybe spend a second putting yourself in someone else's shoes before you write them off. Who knows, if you'd had the same experiences as them maybe you'd think nearly the same as how they do.
They're jealous. "Conservatives" have been pushing cancel culture since forever. Remember (if you're old enough) the Moral Majority? In 1997, the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention boycotted the Walt Disney company, which they perceived to be too gay-friendly. Two years later, Jerry Falwell Sr., founder of the Moral Majority, famously led an effort to boycott "The Teletubbies," a childrenâ(TM)s television program, because he got an inkling that its Tinky-Winky character was covertly gay. In 2012, the evangelical group "One Million Moms," part of the American Family Association, led a boycott of JCPenney after comedian Ellen DeGeneres, an out lesbian, was named the department store chainâ(TM)s spokesperson.
It goes back further than that. Hell, the TV show WKRP in Cincinatti devoted the final episode of Season 3 (1981) to the subject. From Wikipedia:
Evangelist Dr. Bob Halyers (Richard Paul), a take-off on Jerry Falwell, threatens WKRP with a boycott unless they stop playing songs with "obscene" lyrics.
More recently, the call for boycotting Starbucks when they pledged to hire 10,000 immigrants. The fun part was lambasting the company for not pledging to hire 10,000 veterans -- without knowing the company already had [foxbusiness.com] a program doing that for years, and has well surpassed their stated goals.
The simple truth is conservatives are jealous. None of their calls for boycotts every actually worked, other than generating free publicity for their targets.
US got into WWI because Germany violated the Sussex agreement. Germany violated the Sussex agreement becauses the US was suppling allies and not willing to fight UK's blockaids in supplying Germany. Wilson was the greatest voice against WWI entry but once passergers started getting hit again, the isolationist had no legs to stand on and the opposition got majority.
US got into WWII because the majority, non-isolationists believed the Europeans couldn't plan not to get into WWIII. Once Pearl Harbor happened
The fact that he also commits distracting unforced errors in totally unrelated areas is just another symptom of his personality, which is poorly aligned to leadership of the FSF or in the free software community.
It's not an unrelated area because he made it relevant. When you are an officer of an organization you are always speaking as an officer of that organization whether that is your intent or not. When you're the public face of something, you are always that face. You retain the right to free speech but The Public is not going to keep you separate from your position in their minds. And the organization has to take that into consideration.
There is no such thing as an unrelated area when you are the public face
If we are talking about the Minsky email chain, I still think it is ultimately not related to the FSF or free software. It absolutely reflects on him, and indirectly on his fitness for leadership, but Minsky-at-Epstein's-place was a question about Minsky's private behavior.
Historically, The Public was smart enough to recognize that, and to understand that Stallman's comments on Minsky were Stallman's own opinions. Unless the FSF is effectively his pet project, or Stallman indicates he is speaking as an of
How about his advocacy for eugenics or the related comparison of disabled children to abused pets?
Or how for years he claimed that a willing child means that a pedophilic act isn't wrong? (Recently retracted, yes, but it went on for a long time.)
The FSF is absolutely Stallman's pet project. More, it's basically his identity. The man cannot speak for very long without veering off into FSF-related topics. When he resigned from the Board, he maintained his role as a voting member. His life revolves around the
My opinion is the same as to those: They're good examples of why his judgement and communication skills are awful enough to not have hum as a leader, but they're obviously not FSF positions.
If the FSF really is his pet project, and has no real identity separate from him, then the proper outcome of this vote is clear, and everyone should help the FSF close shop and transfer GNU projects to more responsible, independent stewards. The work is too important to be one person's pet project, and it should stop ac
Again, it does not matter and never has mattered whether one is acting in an official capacity. If they do something that reflects poorly on them then it reflects poorly on organizations that will accept them as a member.
If you think it does not, you probably don't understand why Jared is not still the face of Subway.
A citation for what, specifically? You could start by reading any of the Slashdot threads about Richard Stallman in the last month, because every single fucking one of them features people demanding citations -- and then rejecting them, usually for flimsy reasons.
Name which specific things RMS did to make a hostile environment and for each thing he did or each "incident" cite either objective proof such as the report of an independent investigator, Or two statements from different credible witnesses whose testimony agrees on an exact time, story, and event, or RMS' own admission of that thing he did.
A credible witness is a person who at a minimum can be established (without relying on their story) to have worked with RMS around the time of the incident, or it's pro
Go back and read the other recent Slashdot threads. I'm sick of providing pointers to the abundant details reports and exact sources for Stallman being an arrogant, offensive, obnoxious asshole. I'm not going to spend my time digging them up again just because you claim you weren't paying attention the last three times this subject came up.
Whether it's true or not, I don't think DrinkyPoo should be posting (or, more generally, allowed to keep a job or access the internet) under the shadow of those accusations. It's become a distraction.
I'm so torn (Score:5, Interesting)
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
On the other hand, Debian governance gave us systemd.
On the gripping hand, if the OSI says they won't work with the FSF while Stallman is around, that's a huge bonus. Fuck those fraudulent fucks.
Re: (Score:3)
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
That right there is the problem. Anybody can make accusations, anytime.
This formulation "cannot effectively lead" is just a dodge to avoid anybody having to prove allegations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Debian governance gave us systemd.
Before blaming that on poor governance, ask yourself why that is. If you don't want to ask yourself go read the technical discussion (they were all opened) on why they went that way, as did many other distros.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.
It's actually because people keep making claims of harassment against him, but way to marginalize them.
The 'has become a distraction' argument has become nothing more than bland cover for cowards who won't stand up to cancel culture but also don't agree.
I don't stand up to cancel culture because I am not opposed to cancel culture. Conservacucks have no right to stand up to cancel culture because they invented cancel culture. I am not a coward, and I do agree. Lots of things should be cancelled.
"Cancelers" need to be called out for the shit-stains they actually are.
Conservatives cancelled alcohol and drugs. They tried to cancel heavy metal and dungeons and dragons. They cancelled thousands of black people with nooses. Now they
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, some cancel culture is in order. People like yourself for instance... ;)
Seriously, no, no and a thousand times no! You do not get to talk about marginalizing accusations. Because accusations without a proper hearing before a judge are and will forever remain just some people throwing niceties at someone else they don't like.
Given how much it is en vogue to accuse anyone whose name is known to more than five people of misconduct, an accusation is worth NOTHING!
Obviously it must be investigated properly but until a clean investigation comes up with something establishing at least a somewhat coherent case, and accusation says nothing at all.
If you've got ten accusations you've got a better chance of the case being a valid one but even so the accusations, even if there were a million of them are worth NOTHING.
There is a very good reason most advanced societies have a judicial system and rely on due process. The system is not perfect by far but if we didn't have it, people like you would have either ruined the country or been thrown off a cliff long ago.
And now go ahead and mark me flamebait or troll because I will add that I'm kinda sad I don't get to throw you off said cliff for making society worse.
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, some cancel culture is in order. People like yourself for instance... ;)
Go for it. That's the whole point. Freedom to disassociate is done by consensus. If you can get enough people to care, you can all cancel drinkypoo - whatever that means to you. Good luck! The judicial process is for crimes, dumbass. The freedom to say "I don't wanna work with this guy" doesn't require involvement of the justice system. Nobody is proposing that he be incarcerated for his actions and words. The stakes are not high enough and the freedoms of folks like Stallman to go do something else are not curtailed enough to warrant the time and money it costs to use the court system. Your thinking is .. small.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom to disassociate is done by consensus. If you can get enough people to care, you can all cancel drinkypoo - whatever that means to you. Good luck!
You left off the part of cancel culture where people would dox dinkypoo, try to get him fired, smear him as *ist, go through his digital trash and pull out of context 10+ year old posts, and down-vote-bomb any posts he makes on any subject regardless of merit.
No, I am not supporting cancelling dinkypoo, but we need to be clear about terms of what is being suggested.
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Insightful)
Go for it. That's the whole point. Freedom to disassociate is done by consensus. If you can get enough people to care, you can all cancel drinkypoo - whatever that means to you. Good luck!
So you must be okay with DDOS attacks, where a horde of mindless drones attack something just because they can't think for themselves?
And there is more to Cancel Culture [washingtontimes.com] than to just deciding for yourself the you don't like someone and getting your friends to dislike them as well. See, the term "cancel" is actually there because events [breitbart.com] have [reason.com] gotten cancelled [businessinsider.com]. The mentality behind this is "what the speaker is going to say is so abhorrent that NOBODY should hear them." See what they did? They made your decision for you.
Re: (Score:2)
"And there is more to Cancel Culture than to just deciding for yourself the you don't like someone and getting your friends to dislike them as well. See, the term "cancel" is actually there because events have gotten cancelled."
Events get canceled when they are no longer profitable. And they get canceled by corporations, not by protestors. But you are only mad at the protestors, instead of your corporate masters who make all your decisions for you.
Tread me harder, daddy!
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly nobody is decrying the freedom to say "I don't want to work with that guy"
What we have problem with is people who take it a few steps further. Its I won't work with YOU either unless you also refuse to work with that guy. They than act like its some high minded act on their end when its basically just school yard bullying of the "you can't be my friend and friends with Tommy" sort.
Than there are those that take it even farther than that, YOU MUST DENOUNCE such and such or be considered to be endorsing every bad action on their part, and we are going to go around insisting to everyone that you are part of some conspiracy of institutional-whatever-ism because you won't abuse your position of power to punish someone for some unrelated to your activities thing they have decided is a crime.
THAT is cancel culture and it has nothing to do with justice at all. Its about a bunch of little cowards and cry babies who think the world was unfair to them at some point finding out they can form a mob and bully others. The moment they don't have the mob behind them they shrink away. Which is why they have to build 'safe spaces' etc, because they are only brave when they know there is a nearby rock to cower under if they don't immediately get their way.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's the risk with the free market. If Brand A and Brand B are similar enough, but Brand A supports clubbing baby seals then the customers can move to Brand B. You as a customer can make that choice, and if enough people do, then Brand A might see that it's more profitable to not support clubbing baby seals any more. It's not about justice or "safe spaces" (whatever that means), it's about organizations matching their policies up with their customers/users.
Now unfortunately that kind of sucks if
Re: I'm so torn (Score:3)
Dumbass yourself.
Whoever doesn't "want to work with this guy" is free to to quit. It's when somebody tries to quit you because they don't want to work with you that things get unfair, and you realise that principles of a judicial system should apply.
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that while I'm polarizing, and may be an acquired taste, I have twice as many fans as foes. I ain't gettin' cancelled unless they use the system they claim to abhor and have me swatted.
Being part of the brain damaged angry mob has always proven to be popular throughout history. You don't think you wouldn't be cancelled in a heartbeat if someone selected some of the less refined snippets of your old posts and posted them out of context? Losing your career and reputation is no biggy though right?
Re: (Score:3)
"You don't think you wouldn't be cancelled in a heartbeat if someone selected some of the less refined snippets of your old posts and posted them out of context?"
It has been done more than once and I'M STILL HERE.
I have NEVER treated Slashdot like a popularity contest. I have ALWAYS spoken my mind. I've been here a long time despite people trying to cancel me continuously. People abuse moderation against me constantly and many are often trying to make me look bad with old comments.
It does not work because I
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Insightful)
I see in another comment you describe yourself as a high functioning aspergers. I think you are slightly less high functioning than you imagine.
The bit you're missing here is that someone can act very unpleasantly, and make people not want to have anything to do with them, but for their behaviour to not be criminal offence.
Stallman has repeatedly done stuff that makes people not want to have anything to do with him. He's been told specific parts of his behaviour are unpleasant. He, like you, thinks that if he isn't breaking a law, he's allowed to continue that behaviour. He can, but at the same time, that means that some people don't want anything to do with him.
At some point the people running a project need to decide who they want to include and who they want to exclude.
Should they keep a guy who is a creep, and refuses to listen to feedback as to why his behaviour is unpleasant, or do they want to keep everyone else who doesn't want to have anything to do with him?
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the only safe and consistent response to the cancel mob is to refuse any of their demands.
I wonder what precisely is your definition of "the cancel mob"?
(1) "cancel mob" is anyone who says that RMS shouldn't be in a leadership position
(2) there are some reasonable people who say RMS shouldn't be in a leadership position and it's fine to listen to them, but other people who say that RMS shouldn't be in a leadership position and they're the cancel mob and we should ignore them
(3) "cancel mob" is anyone who thinks that no actions short of illegal ones should disqualify someone from leadership posit
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point the people running a project need to decide who they want to include and who they want to exclude.
They did. After his resignation, they apparently realized that allowing him to go was a mistake. So now he's back. They have decided.
This has really annoyed the woke progressives, because it calls into question their ability to infiltrate and dominate organizations through sheer intimidation. I hope and trust that the FSF will stay true to this decision, and keep Stallman despite external pressure.
Organizations like OSI that have condemned his return? I do believe we have found a way to identify which organizations have already been infiltrated.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people that built society were complete creeps or assholes that nobody wanted anything to do with. That doesn't mean that their success should afford them to get away with whatever they want but the people who tend to be successful aren't usually the same people worried about being liked by everyone.
Unpleasant to whom? Everyone? Or a small group of very vocal people with very focused
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm so torn (Score:2)
+1 Spine & Balls
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that the accusations against Stallman should be heard in court.
However, credible accusations have legs even without a day in court.
Stallman himself has made these accusations credible [wired.com], e.g. with his pleasure cards offering tender embraces being handed out at official events.
I note that that link doesn't show the card which is actually and clearly a fairly simple joke business card (and which he handed to everyone, not just women).
It's perfectly reasonable to hand those out at gatherings where you're not a person of influence.
Or where, you know, people actually look at it in context and have a laugh.
When you add to that his apparent endorsement of men in power taking advantage of young women on specious grounds (how the young women were "presented", as if that were relevant) he's really dealt himself the hand he's got to play.
Again, that's not really what's going on. He was asked about how he felt about the accusations against Minsky (which turned out to be nonsense) and in his friend's defence said that Minsky would probably not have known what was going on since the woman's handlers would have ordered her to present herself as un-coerced.
I'd love to hear what you think is the problem with that. It seems like you're trying to introduce legislation about "decent" age gaps in relationships or something. It's hard to tell since even the woman in question said that Minsky turned her down. You seem confused about human relationships generally.
If credible accusations [medium.com] were made against me, I'd expect to have to answer them.
Given that these accusations appear credible enough, I'd expect Stallman to have to answer them. He doesn't appear terribly interested in doing that, and this sure doesn't cut it [lwn.net]. That also makes the accusations seem more credible.
Not being interested in wasting time answering bullshit accusations about things that didn't happen does not transform lies and innuendo into facts.
Re: (Score:3)
and which he handed to everyone, not just women
People keep saying that as if it's some kind of defence. It doesn't matter what the gender of the person receiving it is, it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Insightful)
What's inappropriate changes constantly although that list is getting longer and longer
Re: (Score:2)
Culture changes over time, you can't stop that happening.
People have been making this complaint for centuries, millennia probably.
Much of it is the inevitable result of society getting more liberal. For example when it was illegal to be gay there were not many people calling out homophobia. Once it became legal people had to learn what stuff was homophobic, so were are right to say that there are more rules now because we went from one (homosexuality is illegal) to many (there are many forms of homophobia).
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Insightful)
You incorrectly understand "liberal" to mean more restrictive.
Hate speech IS free speech. A liberal would understand that not everyone shares their personal view. Tolerance. Not punishment.
You people are so doublethink it hurts.
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Interesting)
That culture changes over time (and space) should be an argument for toleration.
We ought to be able to realize that maybe it isn't always great when a hegemonic culture imposes their norms and customs as the only moral option.
A few years ago there was, for a very brief time, an ethnicity manipulation filter in the face editing app FaceApp.
There is a cultural taboo against "blackface" in the US, for understandable historical reasons, and to portray someone of another "race" than they are is seen as deeply offensive. That's seen as self evident to you, but still not to most people on this planet. Most of the world don't have or even know this historical context. Probably, most dark-skinned people on the planet would not even know what they were supposed to be offended at in this app.
The Russian dev clearly didn't know about this cultural taboo, because you can't doubt his desire to respect his audience: it wasn't even available for a full day. He pulled it and apologized as soon as he saw the first negative reaction.
Maybe that's good. Maybe we should respect other cultures' taboos to some degree, like the apostle Paul who declared that there was nothing inherently wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols (a big taboo in his native Jewish culture) but that he would go all-out vegetarian if you seriously thought there was, to not undermine your conscience.
But MAYBE we shouldn't let upper class Americans decide for the whole world what to tolerate and what to not tolerate, damnit.
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't just talking about some arbitrary taboo though, these issues are about actual, real harm done to people.
In RMS' case his behaviour does directly affect others. If it was just general disgust at him eating his own toe jam I'd dismiss it.
Re: (Score:2)
and which he handed to everyone, not just women
People keep saying that as if it's some kind of defence.
It changes the tone.
It doesn't matter what the gender of the person receiving it is, it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
Have you seen the card? It's a simple joke. If it consisted simply of the words "For tender embraces, call this number" then you might have a bit of an argument, but it doesn't say that.
Why does no one get bent about the offer of good food or exotic music that appear on the card? Why does no one mention that the text is followed by "unusual sense of humour"?
Because that would spoil the fake outrage and make it obvious that the card is a joke that no one could possibly claim was serious.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Good food and exotic music are stuff people share with platonic friends and business acquaintances. In fact they are a pretty common excuse to go expense a nice meal on the company credit card.
Tender embraces are things people in intimate relationships have, necessitating as they do very close physical contact.
Re: (Score:2)
Good food and exotic music are stuff people share with platonic friends and business acquaintances. In fact they are a pretty common excuse to go expense a nice meal on the company credit card.
Tender embraces are things people in intimate relationships have, necessitating as they do very close physical contact.
Yes - it's called comedy contrast.
I don't believe you honestly think the card was offensive; I don't believe anyone does. It's a non-issue, but I have played Illuminati enough to understand the concept of a whispering campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be the devil's advocate, but why would it be inappropriate to offer someone a "tender embrace" if the person is free to refuse? It's not like he is pressuring anyone to accept the "tender embrace", or asking for a "tender embrace" over and over again, which would be only then considered harassment.
Also there is nothing sexual in a "tender embrace" per se. A tender embrace is a hug, people give hugs in variety of situations. Do you find the people giving away "free hugs" creepy? Do you find them creepy
Re: (Score:2)
People who go to work or professional events generally aren't there to hook up. For women there is also the additional risk that the guy takes rejection badly.
Re: (Score:2)
He was asked about how he felt about the accusations against Minsky (which turned out to be nonsense) and in his friend's defense said that Minsky would probably not have known what was going on since the woman's handlers would have ordered her to present herself as un-coerced. I'd love to hear what you think is the problem with that.
I'm not the person you're addressing but I can tell you my problem with that. RMS said that the most plausible explanation was that the girl presented as willing. The only argument he provided for this claim was the assertion that if she weren't, then Epstein would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that. What I think the most plausible explanation is that she wasn't willing, and presented as such in various ways, and no one around her even cared about consent or mutual respect or how she presente
Re: (Score:2)
"was asked about how he felt about the accusations against Minsky (which turned out to be nonsense) and in his friend's defence said that Minsky would probably not have known what was going on since the woman's handlers would have ordered her to present herself as un-coerced."
The accusations against Minsky have NOT been shown to be nonsense. But that is not the core issue here.
The very reason why Stallman has proven that he has his head too far up his own ass to serve as a representative of the FSF is that
Re: (Score:2)
I note that that link doesn't show the card which is actually and clearly a fairly simple joke business card (and which he handed to everyone, not just women).
Oh thank god. Here I was worried that a joke that is offensive to one sex was only being made with that sex. I'm sure the women are sooo relieved that the men are in on the joke too.
Note: You are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I don't stand up to cancel culture because I am not opposed to cancel culture. Conservacucks have no right to stand up to cancel culture because they invented cancel culture. I am not a coward, and I do agree. Lots of things should be cancelled.
You are fucking coward, you know you are fucking coward. You go along with the whims of the mob today because it makes you feel powerful; that is it. You have no thoughts of your own, just bullshit others have put in your head.
Conservatives cancelled alcohol and drugs.
HAHAH funny, nobody would have described the temperance movement as conservative when it happened. Classic progressive gas-lighting right there. Yes conservatives eventually embraced it because turns out progressives were somewhat correct about that one, drugs are bad for society.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They cancelled thousands of black people with nooses
This person needs to learn history. The KKK in the south was run by a bunch of Democrats. Heck the entire south was. It was the Republicans under Abraham Lincoln that fought the civil war and freed the slaves. It was the southern Democrats that tried to filibuster the civil rights bill. The longest filibuster in U.S. history was 75 days and “took place in 1964, when Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act.”
Re: (Score:2)
So in your opinion, those historical democrats do not embrace or embody the values of the republican party today. Can you point out some efforts by the modern-day GOP to improve civil rights or increase freedom for our citizens?
Re: (Score:3)
Canceling metal and rap was Al Gore (Score:4, Insightful)
They tried to cancel heavy metal [and rap]
That was actually Al Gore, and his wife. Seriously, not making this shit up.
Historical Illiteracy (Score:2)
[conservatives] cancelled thousands of black people with nooses.
Waitaminute! Those were Democrats. Are you saying Democrats were conservatives?
Read some history.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a coward, and I do agree. Lots of things should be cancelled.
Why is that?
Conservatives cancelled alcohol and drugs. They tried to cancel heavy metal and dungeons and dragons.
10 PRINT "Wrong + Wrong != Right"
20 GOTO 10
Cancel culture is what self-entitled little bitches call freedom of association and effective protest. You see other people's views which conflict with your own being successful and you can see the writing on the wall for your position of privilege. And you're terrified. You're the coward.
There is a difference between building consensus for a position and forcing your views upon others. Those supporting cancel culture typically couch their perspective as the former asserting they are merely expressing themselves when in fact they are doing the latter.
One could for example advocate for healthy eating by building consensus for people to choose to eat healthy. Or one could go around assembling mobs to make lots of noise and boycott the pr
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Insightful)
They cancelled thousands of black people with nooses.
No offense, and I am NOT a conservative (I’m more liberal than 99% of people who call themselves liberal), but when I read this kind of self-congratulatory stuff, it always strikes me as insincere.
Democrats fought a war to preserve slavery. The Democrats birthed the KKK. They pursued eugenics for much of the 20th century. A Democratic President snubbed Jesse Owens. More Democrats opposed the civil rights act than Republicans. Dems opposed the ERA. Hell, they had an ex Grand Wizard in Congress well into the 00s. Hilary was anti-gay-marriage well into her 60s, yet, you probably voted for her. Obama was publicly against it both times he ran, and you probably voted for him. These same Dems turned around and boycotted the poorest, blackest state in the union for holding the exact same position as the people they elected President.
60% of corruption convictions are against Democrats. Most high-profile police shooting of unarmed blacks have occurred in Dem regions. Few, if any, laws were passed to curtail it. NY is the sole exception.
Your chosen group is not who you pretend that they are, and your self-image is not genuine.No amount of modding people Trolls or Flamebait is going to change that. It’ll just make you feel better, which is really the point of all of this.
Both groups are pretty messed up, and Dems have an abysmal record on human rights. Look at black incarceration rates and living standards since Democrats started pretending to care about minorities. It’s atrocious.
As long as you spend your life pointing fingers at others, it will likely never change.
news for nerds (Score:3)
check your history books, conservatives did try to cancel D&D.
Re: (Score:2)
check your history books, conservatives did try to cancel D&D.
And Al Gore tried to cancel metal and rap.
Re: (Score:2)
> check your history books, conservatives did try to cancel D&D.
>> And Al Gore tried to cancel metal and rap.
Authoritarians tried to cancel both.
Don't fall for their divide-and-conquer strategies. Fight them together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. People should not be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with, unless there is a very good reason. Taking away people's freedom of speech so that they can't even criticise something is never okay either.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know. All those anti-abortion conservative christians backing Biden and pissed off about Trump stacking the supreme court on his way out the door are just really getting to me.
Oh wait, you're ridiculous and there are just as many, if not more, religious conservatives today as there was 40 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
They did, that is why democrats are trying to ban abortion and republicans are trying to make abortion mandatory for everyone at least once per lifetime.
That or people don't like to take honest looks at who they associate with and instead find a big bad for all their problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes evangelicals flipped. Temperance was a progressive movement. Abolition was an evangelical led progressive movement. Not all progress is bad! However moving to fast and not evaluating the results critically and carefully is!
The entire notion of individual liberties was pretty 'progressive' by the standards of the mid 18th Century.
Real conservatives are not afraid of change, but they do hold certain core ideals are not subject to change, and prioritize results over appearances.
Re: (Score:2)
Catholic Worker Movement. The Catonsville 9. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.. Women's Christian Temperance Movement.
Religion is neither "liberal" no "conservative".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Democratic progressives were the party of the KKK, Stalin and Mao. Republican conservatives are the party of Lincoln and the civil rights bills.
Idiot conservatives like to spout things like this while ignoring the fact that the parties effectively exchanged platforms starting in the earl 1900, completing in the late 1960s. History is not your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Democratic progressives were the party of the KKK, Stalin and Mao. Republican conservatives are the party of Lincoln and the civil rights bills. You should look into the actual belief system of actual libertarians before spouting historically incorrect bullcrap.
Reality does not support your claims and is a ridiculous statement. The KKK and Neo Nazi's that protested a few years ago in Charlottesville, Virginia were not there supporting Hillary Clinton and Universal Healthcare. The KKK and Neo Nazi's that stormed the capital building on January 6th were not there to support Joe Biden and Women's Rights. As for Stalin and Mao, both have been dead for a long time and the countries they lead are very different today, for better or for worse. Everyone, including Democratic Progressives agree that the political systems they promoted, failed and should not be repeated.
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans used to be the party of Lincoln and the civil rights bills.
Now they are the party of Trump and out competing each other to be more Trumpy, and voter rights restrictions and rollbacks because they just figured out that saying "no" to literally everything when a guy from the other party is in the White House isn't something that really excites voters as much as being FOR something. So instead of coming up with policies and ideas that energize people to vote for them, they've decided to change voting rules at the state level to make it harder for people that won't vote for them to vote at all.
Republicans used to be for fiscal responsibility, but now are only for fiscal responsibility when in the minority as an excuse to block any bill that moves. They have no problem with $4+T budgets with a trillion dollars of deficit built in being suggested by a president with an (R) after his name, but as soon as that letter changes to a (D) they can't stop talking about tax-and-spend bills, running up the national debt, etc. Never mind that the debt is being run up by their own misguided 2017 tax cuts which just double down on the same failed trickle-down economics that has never actually materialized in 40 years of trying.
Republicans used to actually give a damn about personal responsibility, but now are only for personal responsibility when they don't like the person they want to be responsible. If it's one of their own, then it's "cancel culture." For example, we were hearing a lot of crying about Governor Cuomo in New York and how Democrats weren't quick enough to denounce him and suggest resignation for alleged sexual harassment; where is the rush on resignation and denunciation for Matt Gaetz for alleged sex trafficking, statutory rape, illegal drug use, and solicitation of an underage girl among other tasteless and reprehensible behaviors reported?
Republicans used to be the party of "Law and Order" until those laws became inconvenient to holding on to power. Now, the leader of the Republican Party, otherwise known as the only citizen of Florida to be impeached twice, is likely to end the year under multiple criminal indictments, and with several subpoenas served to him to be deposed in multiple civil suits ranging from the violence at the Capitol on 6 January to sexual harassment claims, tax fraud, violation of state election laws, and campaign finance violations including something just reported that sounds a whole lot like bank fraud [nytimes.com] resulting in the return of donations at 5x the rate as the Biden campaign. And what was this money used for? Paying off campaign debt from the campaign that was just lost (and, by the way, what happened to the billionaire candidate self-funding?), and not legal defense or "stopping the steal" or whatever bullshit that was being sold to the donors.
Republicans, by and large, used to be respectable. Now they are flailing about with culture wars, bloviating about Mr. Potatohead and Dr. Seuss trying to find anything that will stick as a wedge issue in order to stay relevant, rather than going the way of the Federalists and Whigs. They've even managed to piss off corporate donors who used to be inseparable from the GOP. Any attempt to try to make our society even a bit more egalitarian results in a refrain about "cancel culture" and "leftist extremism" because the only wrench left in the toolbox is fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
This isn't the Republican Party we need in order to keep the more extreme actors in both parties in check. This is a party that has been taken over by the extreme actors, and then accuses the Democratic Party of the same. These guys are populist windbags in public, and then authoritarian wannabe oligarchs in private who see treating people with dignity and respect as weakness, where compromise should be avoided at all costs, and have no problems with lying and hypocrisy. And if they don't cut the cancer out fast, all that will be left are the tumors.
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Insightful)
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.
Yes, let's deal with this problem by changing the rest of the world world. If we change everyone else but Stallman, Stallman needn't change.
RMS isn't just some hacker churning out code, for decades he has been a politician. That's not a put-down, he has made his most important contributions as a political thinker and leader. As someone with a wacky hacker persona he also gets some slack cut, but it's not *unlimited* slack. This is not a new problem for public figures; the Bible ascribes these sayings to King Solomon: "Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues." and "Those who guard their mouths and their tongues keep themselves from calamity."
Knowing when to keep your mouth shut and the persona dialed off is a basic requirement for a political leader.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to cancel the cancellers? Does that make you a shit-stain as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Interesting)
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap. ....
I personally think that Stallman, left to his own devices, would have destroyed the whole concept of Free Software decades ago. It was only in spite of him and because of the heroic efforts of many others (Torvalds, Perens, and Raymond were notable) that we are where we are today. In spite of his undoubted technical brilliance and moral insights, he has been more of an obstacle to progress than an actual constructive force for literally decades.
In the very early period of Linux he was actively attacking the whole concept as necessary, as the Hurd was technically superior and right around the corner. Later on he made his cheesy attempt to co-opt the efforts of others, first by branding "Linux" as "Lignux" and then advocating for "GNU/Linux". To me this was nothing more than a lame attempt to take credit for the considerable efforts of others, in particular when they had accomplished something (building a totally free and working operating system kernel) that he most obviously could not.
Personal story: in the early 90's (pre-linux) I offered to contribute on GCC. This involved tedious weeks of missed phone calls and voice mails, and I flew at my own expense from Seattle to Boston to meet with the Great Man.
He blew off the meeting.
A few years later I reached out again, and in a phone conference call where he finally bothered to show up he shut down the whole idea hard in the first three minutes. Keep in mind that I was offering to contribute to GCC without pay and under the terms of the GPL.
By that time, I could make whatever contributions to Linux I wanted, Linus and Alan Cox would answer emails, and as opposed to Stallman they seemed genuinely interested in the contributions of others and in fact encouraged them. In Stallman's vision only fully vetted coders who met his high standards would be permitted to contribute.
Maybe it isn't fair for me to judge him so harshly on his piss-poor behavior over 25 years ago, but he established to me that he is a High Artist of Assholery and is ill-suited for any kind of leadership position in any organization, and especially so in an organization that needs to encourage people to contribute their time and ideas in the furtherance of a cause, however noble. I think the more recent Epstein/Minsky crap and his well-known history of creeping on women are just more bricks in a pretty considerable wall.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to defend the GNU/Linux thing, without those GNU tools building a usable OS that attracted other developers to work on it would have been much harder. Most people tried to leverage commercial tools like compilers and general software, e.g. by creating an OS compatible with some other one.
GNU really unlocked a lot of possibilities back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the GPL does it say I have to modify the name of my project if it uses some other project?
Also, consider Linus' opinion on the naming - Redhat Linux is fine, because Redhat Distributes it. Same with Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware et al. He's ok with GNU/Linux - IF it is in fact a GNU-made distribution of Linux. (see Revolution OS for the exact quote, but it is very similar to what I've typed). Since then Debian has called itself "Debian GNU/Linux", but as I asked, where in the GPL does it require me
Re: (Score:2)
Just to defend the GNU/Linux thing, without those GNU tools building a usable OS that attracted other developers to work on it would have been much harder. Most people tried to leverage commercial tools like compilers and general software, e.g. by creating an OS compatible with some other one.
GNU really unlocked a lot of possibilities back then.
Agreed, but in context with his earlier dismissal of Linux and the later attempt to get it called LiGNUx it was pretty damned obvious that this was 99% obnoxious arrogance (or arrogant obnoxiousness) and about 1% giving credit where credit was due.
I freely admit that my own personal dealings with Stallman, as limited as they were (and I doubt he even remembers me) color my view of him. But at least my views are based on some (limited) first-hand experience and not projection -- which I think the vast major
Re: (Score:2)
Then object to his governance by his competency, not for some unfounded sexual misconduct allegations. I would support your objection if this is the case.
Now that there is a sizable amount of people who share your desired outcome (oust the guy), you come out and say "oh I've always wanted to fire him but you guys have given me the perfect excuse, even if the excuse is vague and ambiguous. This proves he is a horrible human being and he must be ousted." Don't you find this disingenuous?
No, I don't.
In the real world people get fired all the time for cumulative bad conduct and cumulative screwups. You seem to be arguing that decision processing on someone's employment status should somehow be stateless and that not doing so is wrong.
If you've ever employed people for any length of time you've certainly had a situation with a problematic employee where one day some new information comes to your attention and that employee has to go from "problematic" to "fired". That's part of having peopl
I agree "has become a distraction" (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem here is that with Stalman's position of power he should be extra careful hitting on girls. To be blunt
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Evidence please.
Re: (Score:2)
The "pleasure cards," have been distributed equally to men and women. That means either they do not have the sexual undertones that the mob thinks they have, or that RMS is universally horny, which should make him a SJW hero, as he was trying to hit on everything that moves, regardless of gender.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell he was hitting on anything with a pulse and doing it in a professional and Academic setting. To the point where he was handing out "Pleasure Cards"
Yes. "Pleasure cards" - has an unprofessional look, inappropriate behavior for school staff in an academic setting, for sure. That is the extent of it -- it is problematic conduct which is concerning and may foreshadow other behaviors that would actually be bad, But not Evil or an "offense" justifying discipline beyond the organizati
Go find Beau Of the Fifth Column's (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuts. Absolutely nuts.
RMS failed to lead for may years, decline of GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.
RMS is a poor leader outside of this crap. Look at the decline of the GPL, the one thing which is his original work, his actual accomplishment. Look at the increased disuse of the GPL, in 2020 it accounts for only 24% of projects (down from 39% in 2016) while the more permissive licenses account for 61%. If you look at GPL v3 specifically it only 10%, half the customers rejecting the upgrade and sticking with the older model, v2. That's quite the loss under RMS' leadership. So does the FSF deserve the best and most effective leadership available or is just a plaything for RMS?
Some argue that the tech world has changed, corporations are more involved in open source. Yes, the world evolved, the FSF did not. That's the point. The skill set of the founder of an organization is different than the skill set of someone who leads an organization from a market primarily composed of early adopters to a market primarily composed of the public at large. Founders of an company/organizations often have to be replaced due to this.
Failure to adapt, something that dooms companies and organizations every day. If we can say IBM had poor leadership and failed to adapt and is a shadow of its former self, why can we not say the same of the FSF under RMS leadership? Why can we not say RMS exhibited poor leadership and hurt his organization, just like IBM executives exhibited poor leadership and hurt their company?
Re: (Score:2)
Those trying to cancel Lil Nas X?
Re: (Score:3)
Right, personally deciding not to continue endorsing a brand is the same as essentially running them out of town. Oh wait it isn't. Those politicians are not out there telling everyone not buy Coke. They are not out there passing trap laws to shut down Cokes business. They just are not providing advertising for them any more.
Once again the gas-lighting continues. You are pretending merely choosing not associate with actively threatening others who continue to associate they way the cancelers do. Its not th
Re: (Score:2)
Except politicians are telling people to boycott companies.
https://www.newsweek.com/donal... [newsweek.com]
I guess Trump is a politician now.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I want to associate with people who associate with the thing I don't want to associate with?
That seems counterproductive to my protest in the first place?
For example, I do not make friends with Trump supporters. That class of person is not something I want to be associated with. That's not threatening them, that is identifying and removing bigots from my life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm so torn (Score:5, Interesting)
They're jealous. "Conservatives" have been pushing cancel culture since forever. Remember (if you're old enough) the Moral Majority? In 1997, the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention boycotted the Walt Disney company, which they perceived to be too gay-friendly. Two years later, Jerry Falwell Sr., founder of the Moral Majority, famously led an effort to boycott "The Teletubbies," a childrenâ(TM)s television program, because he got an inkling that its Tinky-Winky character was covertly gay. In 2012, the evangelical group "One Million Moms," part of the American Family Association, led a boycott of JCPenney after comedian Ellen DeGeneres, an out lesbian, was named the department store chainâ(TM)s spokesperson.
It goes back further than that. Hell, the TV show WKRP in Cincinatti devoted the final episode of Season 3 (1981) to the subject. From Wikipedia:
Evangelist Dr. Bob Halyers (Richard Paul), a take-off on Jerry Falwell, threatens WKRP with a boycott unless they stop playing songs with "obscene" lyrics.
More recently, the call for boycotting Starbucks when they pledged to hire 10,000 immigrants. The fun part was lambasting the company for not pledging to hire 10,000 veterans -- without knowing the company already had [foxbusiness.com] a program doing that for years, and has well surpassed their stated goals.
The simple truth is conservatives are jealous. None of their calls for boycotts every actually worked, other than generating free publicity for their targets.
Re: (Score:2)
Those idiots tried to fucking cancel Starbucks over a fucking holiday cup and wishing people "happy holidays".
Re: (Score:2)
They successfully cancelled Starbuck's logo. The siren acquired a new strategic hairdo, 'cause boobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I find it much worse to target individuals than companies?
Re: (Score:2)
US got into WWI because Germany violated the Sussex agreement. Germany violated the Sussex agreement becauses the US was suppling allies and not willing to fight UK's blockaids in supplying Germany. Wilson was the greatest voice against WWI entry but once passergers started getting hit again, the isolationist had no legs to stand on and the opposition got majority.
US got into WWII because the majority, non-isolationists believed the Europeans couldn't plan not to get into WWIII. Once Pearl Harbor happened
Re: (Score:3)
Just because something is legal does not mean no one is allowed to react to it.
Re: I'm so torn (Score:2)
Just because someone reacts to something doesn't mean they aren't assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
And the beauty of free speech means you can call them out and react to them all you want.
But you don't get to order them to shut up and stop causing a ruckus because you like the guy they object to.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that he also commits distracting unforced errors in totally unrelated areas is just another symptom of his personality, which is poorly aligned to leadership of the FSF or in the free software community.
It's not an unrelated area because he made it relevant. When you are an officer of an organization you are always speaking as an officer of that organization whether that is your intent or not. When you're the public face of something, you are always that face. You retain the right to free speech but The Public is not going to keep you separate from your position in their minds. And the organization has to take that into consideration.
There is no such thing as an unrelated area when you are the public face
Re: (Score:2)
If we are talking about the Minsky email chain, I still think it is ultimately not related to the FSF or free software. It absolutely reflects on him, and indirectly on his fitness for leadership, but Minsky-at-Epstein's-place was a question about Minsky's private behavior.
Historically, The Public was smart enough to recognize that, and to understand that Stallman's comments on Minsky were Stallman's own opinions. Unless the FSF is effectively his pet project, or Stallman indicates he is speaking as an of
Re: (Score:3)
Historically, The Public was smart enough to recognize that
What? When was the public smart?
Re: (Score:2)
How about his advocacy for eugenics or the related comparison of disabled children to abused pets?
Or how for years he claimed that a willing child means that a pedophilic act isn't wrong? (Recently retracted, yes, but it went on for a long time.)
The FSF is absolutely Stallman's pet project. More, it's basically his identity. The man cannot speak for very long without veering off into FSF-related topics. When he resigned from the Board, he maintained his role as a voting member. His life revolves around the
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is the same as to those: They're good examples of why his judgement and communication skills are awful enough to not have hum as a leader, but they're obviously not FSF positions.
If the FSF really is his pet project, and has no real identity separate from him, then the proper outcome of this vote is clear, and everyone should help the FSF close shop and transfer GNU projects to more responsible, independent stewards. The work is too important to be one person's pet project, and it should stop ac
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it does not matter and never has mattered whether one is acting in an official capacity. If they do something that reflects poorly on them then it reflects poorly on organizations that will accept them as a member.
If you think it does not, you probably don't understand why Jared is not still the face of Subway.
Re: (Score:2)
Which organizations does your intolerant authoritarianism represent? The rest of us need to know who enables you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A citation for what, specifically? You could start by reading any of the Slashdot threads about Richard Stallman in the last month, because every single fucking one of them features people demanding citations -- and then rejecting them, usually for flimsy reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Name which specific things RMS did to make a hostile environment and for each thing he did or each "incident" cite either objective proof such as the report of an independent investigator, Or two statements from different credible witnesses whose testimony agrees on an exact time, story, and event, or RMS' own admission of that thing he did.
A credible witness is a person who at a minimum can be established (without relying on their story) to have worked with RMS around the time of the incident, or it's pro
Re: (Score:2)
Go back and read the other recent Slashdot threads. I'm sick of providing pointers to the abundant details reports and exact sources for Stallman being an arrogant, offensive, obnoxious asshole. I'm not going to spend my time digging them up again just because you claim you weren't paying attention the last three times this subject came up.
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is Nazi a proper noun ..
At least since 90s, according to Godwin's law [wikipedia.org].