> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users

The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.

Contrast that with Ellen Degeneres responding to people dismayed that she sat next to George W. Bush during a game (warning, video in the tweet):

https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow/status/1181395164499070976

Basically, it's okay to be friends with people we disagree with (and really, we ought to).

Wow, that is such a refreshing monologue. Yay Ellen! Right now this is what the world needs more of, not public lynchings and outrage-driven firings. Really happy to see someone with such a high profile take this stance.

Love thy neighbour folks!

(EDIT: this doesn't mean i don't have a problem with GW Bush's needless war, as pointed out by a few sibling comments. It's more like, I think that if people mingled a bit more with people from other camps, then there would be more understanding and, ultimately, less hardship in the world. So much of the shit in the world comes from lack of communication!)

We all have friends we disagree with, but Ellen deserves catching shit for palling around with a guy who started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing.

It didn't end well, but if any dictator or warlord is ever worth a war to overthrow, Saddam Hussein was.

Is that something the US should be doing? I think not, and it frequently ends badly, but Presidents keep trying. Like Obama in Libya or the elder Bush and Clinton in Somalia and Bosnia.

I agree that Saddam deserved to die. He was a monster who used chemical weapons against his own people. But the premise of the war wasn't "Saddam is bad so we should stop him," it was "Iraq is developing WMDs and is an imminent threat." That, of course, was a lie.

Bosnia was different. Clinton was 100% correct (and too slow) to act, because it was genocide. He already Rwandan blood on his hands by his inaction.

Americans started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing. We're all pretty much complicit. If there's any smaller group to be mad at, I'd say it's anybody who didn't oppose that course, but more likely, the U.S. military complex.

Ironically, she didn't catch flack for George being president of the Iraqi war, she caught flack for George's stance on LGBT issues when he was president.

Copy pasting the same comment over and over does not help make your point.

> Americans started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing. We're all pretty much complicit.

Not all of us lied to get Congressional authority to use force with explicit conditions, and not all of us declared those conditions to be met and applied the force so authorized in knowing bad faith.

In fact, exactly one of us did that, and his name is George W. Bush.

Whatever guilt anyone else has in that matter is far less.

Presumably because that's something she clearly has an opinion about.

There is a very great difference between a top-tier celebrity "palling around" with a former president, and someone in an asymmetrical, basically broadcast and image-setting position of power spreading messages that the majority of participants don't support. It is at the very least a huge and unnecessary distraction from the goals of the organization.

George Bush killed a million Iraqis in a war based on fabricated evidence of an Iraqi WMD program

Americans killed a million Iraqis in a war based on fabricated evidence of an Iraqi WMD program. We're all pretty much complicit. If there's any smaller group to be mad at, I'd say it's anybody who didn't oppose that course, but more likely, the U.S. military complex.

Ironically, she didn't catch flack for George being president of the Iraqi war, she caught flack for George's stance on LGBT issues when he was president.

ah yes, I remember personally lying to congress and pushing false narratives in the media. oh wait, no, that wasn't me was it...

No, Americans are certainly not "all pretty much complicit". There is no basis for such an extreme statement, even for moderate values of "pretty much".

Also, isn't this post a copy/paste of one that you just posted? Simply repeating it doesn't make it true, guy.

Love too be friends with a war criminal and mass murderer.

Hey, but he's a painter too! And we all know that no world leader who paints can be truly evil.

The letter does not even mention who the "large part of those we want to reach out to" refers to. The reader is left to figure out on their own whether these are legitimate grievances or power struggle.

This whole thing started with a pedantic e-mail and a blogger that got offended and decided to slander RMS. The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile. And now 'SnarkAsh is implying that RMS was harassing people by exposing his manhood.

This is why fighting the cancel mob is so important. Lies accumulate.

> The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile

They should have stuck to the other times he defended pedophilia and child porn instead.

Perhaps they should have. But they didn't. I guess because recycling very old statements wouldn't make for enough of a story, especially not compared to just lying about current events.

> The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile.

Source? I saw an article by John Gruber[0] that retracted some specific allegations about him, saying that for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS.I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile. That came a leaked email to the MIT CSAIL mailing list (which had been confirmed by multiple sources) and from his personal blog, on a widely circulated article. I'd link to the specific one (edit: [2]), but when searching Google for the query 'child pornography site:stallman.org'[1] there are far too many instances of him commenting on child pornography in the news and such — it's a topic he has spoken at lengths about, and advocating for it is not something new for him.

The article by John Gruber retracts a specific sexual assault allegation. I don't think that he should be tried or burned at the stake for something that he hasn't done, and I don't personally know any other specific allegations of sexual assault on his behalf either. But to say that the media saying RMS defending a pedophile is a lie is silly. The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon.

Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others.

Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer…

[0]: https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_e...

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=child+pornography+site%3Asta...

[2]: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html

> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

[3]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...

Edit: added [2] and [3].

It's not just Emacs that makes RMS a bad person.

> Source?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...

Versus what he actually said. The original e-mails are easily available, they've even been quoted in Salem G.'s blog post.

> for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS

I hope your phrasing here is accidental, because it could be read as alleging that RMS is a "known sexual predator". I'm pretty sure some people will read it that way and run with it.

> I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile.

Me neither. Him defending a pedophile (Epstein) was a lie news outlets run with. Him believing at some point in the past pedophilia may be harmless when both sides are willing is true, because he wrote exactly that years ago (recently retracted, whether because of actual change of mind or damage control is besides the point).

> The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon.

Now that is, from what I can tell, factually incorrect. He only wrote in the past that he think the popular opinion on pedophilia is wrong due to issues of bias.

EDIT: You actually quoted the exact statement. Re-read it carefully.

> Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer…

I clicked that and browsed the results and all I saw in the first couple was:

1) that he believes accusing an underage person who shot nude photos of herself, with no indication of abuse or coercion, of "self-abuse", is bullshit, and

2) that he believes "child pornography" is routinely used as an excuse to justify deploying technologies for Internet censorship, which then can and are being extended to cover more and more material - this being an issue of freedom

Both views are very far from being "pedophile sympathizer"; in particular 2) is what I think is a view shared by most HNers too.

I'm going to assume you're quick to jump to conclusions, but be wary that stuff like this can be misconstrued to further spread falsehoods.

EDIT:

> Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others.

Yes. Vice article misquotes RMS both in the headline and in the article proper, and I'm having a hard time browsing their broken PDF widget so I'll refer you to the original post that started the whole mess:

https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec2...

C-f "willing" to find the actual words Stallman used.

EDIT: And where in previous comment I said it started with a blogger that decided to slander RMS, I meant Salem G. and the post I linked to above, not Mr Gruber, who only conveniently managed to pour gasoline into the fire by confusing ESR with RMS.

>> Source? >https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci.... >https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r.... >Versus what he actually said. The original e-mails are easily available, they've even been quoted in Salem G.'s blog post.

I carefully reread the statements, and I still maintain my opinion on it. I see what you are getting at — he suggested that the girl _presented herself_ as entirely willing, and that this may have been coerced by Epstein. I said in my original comment that I don't want an innocent person accused of sexual assault, and indeed he's suggesting Marvin was innocent in that regard.

However, at this point we're debating whether another person is innocent in order to determine the innocence of some phrasing. My Occam's Razor interpretation really is not that clear here. I honestly cannot say that I think the Vice, et al., interpretation (that he is referring to victims as "entirely willing") is particularly far fetched.

>> for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS >I hope your phrasing here is accidental, because it could be read as alleging that RMS is a "known sexual predator". I'm pretty sure some people will read it that way and run with it.

Yes, indeed there my phrasing is accidental. I'll admit that is very poor phrasing. I'll be clear that I do not think RMS is a "known sexual predator." I also can't say I actively think he is one either, though I do have my assumptions based on this and his prior thoughts.

>> I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile. >Me neither. Him defending a pedophile (Epstein) was a lie news outlets run with. Him believing at some point in the past pedophilia may be harmless when both sides are willing is true, because he wrote exactly that years ago (recently retracted, whether because of actual change of mind or damage control is besides the point).

I have not seen the retraction — I believe that he may have retracted it, but the post on his blog was never updated and I have not seen such a retraction. If you could please provide such a link I'd appreciate it.

>> The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon. >Now that is, from what I can tell, factually incorrect. He only wrote in the past that he think the popular opinion on pedophilia is wrong due to issues of bias. >EDIT: You actually quoted the exact statement. Re-read it carefully. >> Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer… >I clicked that and browsed the results and all I saw in the first couple was: >1) that he believes accusing an underage person who shot nude photos of herself, with no indication of abuse or coercion, of "self-abuse", is bullshit, and >2) that he believes "child pornography" is routinely used as an excuse to justify deploying technologies for Internet censorship, which then can and are being extended to cover more and more material - this being an issue of freedom

Personally I absolutely agree with both 1 and 2 myself, so let me be clear that neither is all he says disagreeable nor bad. I do however think that the sheer number of things he's written on child pornography and pedophilia are a little worrying. Let me repeat I also have not seen him retract past statements (and that I certainly may have missed him doing so). I'm not going to deny this is also based on some bias and personal opinion at all, but it's based on the greater context — I'm looking at it from the perspective I see when I consider all of this information, and I see him as a pedophile sympathizer, and I see that his blog is evidence that he is one.

Let me also be clear that I do believe in free speech, and that he shouldn't have to remove any of his blog posts nor that he should be penalized legally based on thoughts and views. I don't want us to slip down to thoughtcrime.

>Both views are very far from being "pedophile sympathizer"; in particular 2) is what I think is a view shared by most HNers too. >I'm going to assume you're quick to jump to conclusions, but be wary that stuff like this can be misconstrued to further spread falsehoods. >EDIT: >> Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others. >Yes. Vice article misquotes RMS both in the headline and in the article proper, and I'm having a hard time browsing their broken PDF widget so I'll refer you to the original post that started the whole mess: >https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec2.... >C-f "willing" to find the actual words Stallman used. >EDIT: And where in previous comment I said it started with a blogger that decided to slander RMS, I meant Salem G. and the post I linked to above, not Mr Gruber, who only conveniently managed to pour gasoline into the fire by confusing ESR with RMS.

I would have linked the original article by Salem G if I remembered what it went by. My points are mainly about undisputed facts (he said this and that), and how one can interpret them (does that make him a pedophile sympathizer?)

Please, provide a source for your claim of sexual harassment.

(You won't because it's false)

Everyone knows that RMS is a bad houseguest and socially awkward, and women use plants to keep him away. It is known.

What you wrote and what 'SnarkAsh wrote are to each other like poke in the nose is to murder.

Where did it happen that Stallman exposed his penis to somebody? (corrected typo)

Very anemic list. For example, only one person from GCC steering committee (Ian Lance Taylor)

Also not a single woman on that list of Stallman supporters, as far as I can tell.

EDIT: I misread, it’s not a letter of support to Stallman. Sorry.

Quote from the page:

> Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to.

> We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom.

This is not a list of people in support of RMS, they are against RMS.

It's a list of people against RMS.

Not at all. I'm one of the people who signed it.

I think it's clear from the context in what sense you are against RMS. You don't want RMS to continue GNU project leader and representative. RMS wants to continue. You are against RMS.

I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...

> Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to.

> We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom.

These are not supporters and the page isn't made in support of RMS.

I signed it. I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. I think the GNU Advisory Committee is better suited to lead things. I believe both the FSF board and the GAC need term limits and I hope they implement them.

Are you a different person from the mattl who recently tweeted

> Support free software.

> Don’t support Stallman.

https://twitter.com/mattl/status/1177355118829854720?s=20

In any case I think it’s clear the letter is against Stallman retaining the leadership role and therefore in a binary supporter/adversary framing, the signers should not be considered “supporters” of RMS.

> I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU.

The second half of that sentence pits you directly against RMS, who has made clear he does not intend to leave his position with GNU.

> I just don't think he should lead GNU

That'd classify as being against RMS. You can argue semantics all you want, but with someone else as I am not interested.

And so you have seized the opportunity. Disgusting.

Well, that's a problem!

You should read and understand what you sign, before you do.

And my answer to them: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-...

We've banned this account for trolling. Could you please not create accounts to break HN's guidelines with? It's not hard to use this site as intended.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html