Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Reportedly Steps Down As Head Of The GNU Project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cb88
    replied
    Originally posted by dwagner View Post
    That person you talk about authored gcc, the still best and most versatile free and open source compiler of the last 3 decades. If you call that "shitty", the only one full of shit is you.
    There is basically none of stallman's code left in GCC since probably decades... what is your point, his last contributions were in the mid 90's. There are only 43 references to RMS in the gcc codebase... and 2/3 of those are root mean square...

    At the point RMS was writing gcc it was nothing spectacular... and didn't really come into it's own untill forked as EGCS which eventually got merged back into the fold as GCC.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    I have put you together because the final apart applies to both you.

    Originally posted by Blahblah View Post
    To make matters worse, there's witness testimony that Minsky didn't even sleep with the girl, meaning that Stallman's faith in Minsky was almost certainly correct. Oh, but it's not the fact he was right/wrong, it's the fact he decided talk back at all. He should have just known that people participating in technical projects would have a knee-jerk reaction. Essentially, he should have replied to the other faculty members as if he were dealing emotional children instead of functioning adults.
    The law does not require you to sleep with a person to be done for sexual assault. Doing sexual grooming behaviours on a child is guilty by law of sexual assault so the bar of guilt legally is a lot lower than what Stallman used and those in management positions today need to be aware of it. There is a good chance that Stallman faith in Minsky was wrong. Stallman needed to wait for the the full investigation to be completed before doing anything as well as understand the legal bar of guilt on sexual assault was way lower.

    This legal bar on what is sexual assault lowed about 25 years ago. So 30 years evidence he had would have been right to ignore/attempt to discredit the claim but its not today or for the past 25 years.

    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    But next issue is then how Stallman was levered away. It was made by a massive smearing campaign by predatory yellow page qualified hateful media among very toxic and loud twitter smearers, of which some are clearly pofessionals in manipulating these eager to judge, eager to execute masses. This all was totally unfair and absolutely shameful. Do you think people who can do such actions are in some way riding a morally higher horse than Stallman?
    Some thing to be aware of is those smearers have been around for 2 decades. Its really easy to join dots to something that really does not factor into it. Those doing smearers really don't factor into why Stallman was dismissed. Of course those smearers are going to claim credit for success they are not due. Stallman trouble is the fact old laws have started being enforced.

    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    Do you think it is good for a company if it is lead by observably borderline psychopath bullies having strict political views out of tech areas harder than hard core politruks in USSR, and who are eager to publicly destroy anyone who dares to speak something else than what they think is politically correct? What kind of concussive fear they would spread around?
    Doing that is in fact offence under law as well for someone in a leadership position. You are not in fact allowed to bully people it is either verbal assault or physical assault that is offence under law. These laws are not enforced as much as they should be are a very much like the sexual assault rules that are on the books and were being ignored until some point in future they get enforced and we see a cleaning of house.

    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    With RMS in FSF I don't think you had to fear anything.
    Yes we did something to fear with RMS in the FSF at leadership position due to him using the wrong judgement on sexual crimes as I pointed out to Blahblah even that Blahblah did not know it.

    What has come out in the Catholic church cases in Australia and the Harvey Weinstein cases in the USA is that everyone involved in a attempted cover-up of a sexual crime can be legally detained and possibly prosecuted. These laws are old England laws that fairly much apply in every country who legal systems is based off the England one but the laws have been sitting on the books not being enforced until recently.

    So if FSF or GNU board defended the position of RMS in his mistake there is a chance they could down with him this is due to the recent legal precedence backing very old legal precedence as still current . To protect the FSF and GNU organisations Stallman need either to be demoted or fired. Fired being most sure protection so that Stallman mistake over what is sexual assault does not effect the other people in management positions at FSF or GNU organisations.

    Basically Stallman downfall tracks tot he fact people have worked out what laws are in fact on books and the legal requirement as management you are required to follow in sexual assault cases. Anyone who screws up in management position on sexual assault things should expect to be fired and it does not matter if you are founder of the company/organisation or not because the company/organisation can fall into legal mess because of these mistakes.

    Now what I said should have been the message about the Stallman mess. But we have those with a anti Stallman bent not wanting to cover the legal facts so not warning people when it comes to this sexual assault stuff you need to be way more careful particularly if you are in a management role as it how to get fired in a management role.

    The laws that really force FSF and GNU hand over sexual assault are in fact over 300 years old. So these are not new laws on the books. This is also another important point leaving a law you don't agree with on the law books that not being enforced does not mean one day it not come active again. Before Catholic church cases in Australia and the Harvey Weinstein cases in the USA the the laws at play here had been unenforced for roughly 100 years.

    The best thing we can do in a case like this is accept that Stallman made a critical mistake and not try to overly protect. I do hope like in 12 months time Stallman is given a lower non management position due to all the work he has done he is truly due that.

    Leave a comment:


  • dwagner
    replied
    Originally posted by cb88 View Post
    It may be true that in this individual instance no crime was committed... it doesn't however make stallman any more qualified to hold his position, he's been a shitty software hobo for his entire life, and that is just as invalid today as it was throughout his career at MIT and the FSF.
    That person you talk about authored gcc, the still best and most versatile free and open source compiler of the last 3 decades. If you call that "shitty", the only one full of shit is you.

    Leave a comment:


  • perpetually high
    replied
    Originally posted by royce View Post
    I am disgusted by the man-boy-love crowd in here.
    Stallman did nothing wrong.

    Repeat after me: Stallman did nothing wrong!

    Leave a comment:


  • royce
    replied
    I am disgusted by the man-boy-love crowd in here.

    Leave a comment:


  • IreMinMon
    replied
    Originally posted by fuzz View Post

    In Germany it's even lower: 14 (with restrictions, of course). A lot of free software developers live in Germany too.
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post

    But well some expert can go maybe in more details of the German system here, but the major point I wanted to make is that pedophilia in itself is nothing you can blame
    somebody for, it's no choice the act of raping children that is what you can blame people for and the majority of the offender that do that are not pedophile.
    The only point that I was trying to make is that someone could come up and say "I think 22yo and 16yo having sex should be legal"
    Now anyone could say that they're "trying to normalize pedophillia" and "toxic person", but that's really just your subjective opinion and it doesn't mean FSF and GNU project should be out there policing such speech. There's legal branch of the government that's supposed to take care of the matter and more importantly, educated on the matter. It's utterly ridiculous that some random commission based in Santa Clara valley or NYC, tasked with CoC enforcement is now taking matters into own hands, acting as a private extension of the legal branch.

    Unless you by now understand that there's a real scheme of systematically removing people with unpopular opinions from all kinds of positions of influence, you are either blind or stupid.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by cb88 View Post
    It only takes one for time a victim to be raped, and in that one time you've become a rapist PERIOD there is no oh, my bad I only did it once and wont do it again or excuse for being drunk... sheesh. They have to live with what you did, and so should you.

    If you don't think you can control yourself when drunk or might do something heinous like this DONT GET DRUNK.
    First of all go fuck yourself you are this kind of person that quote phrases out of context or add some crazy own context. You imply I have said that it's ok to rape people if you are drunk, that is not what I said, I just said I find it dumb to call somebody a name because he has done 1 thing, that is just not logical. You had sex probably in your live would you like it that everybody calls you "fucker" or most people have stolen one time in their live something either from parents or somewhere else would you want to be reduced as "thief"?

    Or let's say you had once a fight on the school ground with another kid would you want to be called "that's billy the thug"? No we are not defined by 1 thing we did in our live we do millions of things so we are not 1 of it. raping is a Verb it's no noun. How much you hate the activity does not matter for that. Logic is not redefined by how much you hate something.

    Another example is Incest, if somebody had sex with his sister we also don't have a word like "sisterfucker" for them.

    Also "rape" is very loosely defined this days. As example in the US if 2 21 year old had sex willingly and both drunk alcohol, for some fucked up sexist reason the man did rape the women, but the women did not rape the drunk boy.

    So are you know a rapist because sexist stupid laws define something as rape what is no real rape (forced sex)? I mean that is a different topic, peoplj like you cause people that get wrongly accused to suicide. Because by stupid people like you rape is defined as maybe worst crime maybe less than murder but that depends. Why in reality that is not true. It's ruffly similar to normal physical assault, women asked about what they prefer would rather been raped that physically assaulted:
    https://www.rrrather.com/view/164227

    And that is not just because they can't think themself into that and would afterwards pick differently, it's a totally rational choice:
    https://healthresearchfunding.org/en...de-statistics/

    9. 22% of people who had suffered PTSD from rape attempted suicide at one point in their lifetime.
    10. 23% of individuals with PTSD from a physical assault event also attempted suicide at one point in their lives.

    So people can live BETTER with being raped that being beaten up. (being raped as child is differently, but 24% is also not a huge difference to the 22 / 23%) but you don't only call people rapist that raped children therefor I can take the 22% number.

    So stats show that doing a assault is worse than rape, but we don't call people "assaultist" so why would we call em then rapist? That makes logically no sense.

    Except if you either are virtue signaling (you Virtue-signalist *ironie*) or have some fucked up either femnazi or christian taliban believes in you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alliancemd
    replied
    Originally posted by fuzz View Post
    Jesus fucking christ, when did the overall linux community turn to witch hunts?

    Guess I'll start looking at BSD.

    EDIT:
    It doesn't even matter who it is, this just toxic behavior.
    It's not the Linux Community.
    Stallman makes the news and then Twitter Keyboard Warriors go after people, nothing to do with the Linux Community.

    Leave a comment:


  • fuzz
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaporeon View Post

    I was born only a few years before that and this current day ideology that you should treat people differently based on sex and race in the name of anything let alone "diversity" goes completely against everything I was ever taught. The same is true for the other idea that it's perfectly fine to destroy people and remove their voice if they say something you do not agree with, something Richard Stallman has now become a victim of.

    Where the hell did this bullcrap come from? There are many people much older than myself that have taken on this mindset too, and to me this is pure insanity. I do struggle to understand how this idea swept though and corroded people's common logic away so easily.

    Also, why are lies and misinfo perfectly allowed if as long as it's used to attack something the mob does not like?
    I was also only born a few years before that and it doesn't make sense to me, either.

    This social psychology professor explains it much better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e9VYf9FKHo

    Leave a comment:


  • moilami
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    That been a problem. Being an exception to a rule that has a legal precedent its only a matter of time until that is corrected. Stallman has had a very long run.



    All that stuff on his homepage and the like could have been done as just a advocate. That is the job title Stallman should have been given. That means he can still have input like vote at meetings. But day to day operations he does not have final say as an advocate so would not have had the legal restriction on action.



    It was not sudden. There have been many questions over the decades if Stallman should have stepped out of the management roles. This was not a solitary event of him putting foot in it either. If he had been moved to the right job title the toxic hate groups would have had nothing to work with.



    I am not going to say Stallman should not be respect for falling on his sword to defend his friend. But we have to accept this is legal responsibilities to be a project/company lead. From what you said you are suitable management role.



    Problem is management defines brave differently. You have to be brave enough in management to ride out a storm while you are required to keep you mouth shut and collect evidence proving one way or the other. Its a very hard thing to be a project lead and do it right. You require a very tough skin and the ability to suppress you emotions while you collect facts.



    Audience size is not critical. The requirement as a Project lead/Management is always act correctly. It does not matter in fact if there is no audience in fact. People have been fired from companies from management position because their superior read over their journal notes and it showed problems in personal logic. So a Audience of 1 is enough to get you fired if they have the evidence from a management role.

    Like it or not Richard Stallman has had the wrong job title and its now caught up with him. I wish he never had those titles because he really was never suitable for them. He could have done all the same things as a advocate/appointed representative to events. Stallman being the representative of FSF/GNU is a title he could keep and him putting foot in it would not be a fire able offence. Being a manager/project lead putting foot in it is a fire able offence.

    The job title you are given is very important at times if you keep your job or not.
    I get what you write and I even agree on it. Good posting. But next issue is then how Stallman was levered away. It was made by a massive smearing campaign by predatory yellow page qualified hateful media among very toxic and loud twitter smearers, of which some are clearly pofessionals in manipulating these eager to judge, eager to execute masses. This all was totally unfair and absolutely shameful. Do you think people who can do such actions are in some way riding a morally higher horse than Stallman?

    Do you think it is good for a company if it is lead by observably borderline psychopath bullies having strict political views out of tech areas harder than hard core politruks in USSR, and who are eager to publicly destroy anyone who dares to speak something else than what they think is politically correct? What kind of concussive fear they would spread around?

    With RMS in FSF I don't think you had to fear anything.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X