Careercow Richard Stallman / rms - Dirty old communist hobo who eats his own footskin. HURD release: Never. Parrot sex: Imminent.

[AmpleApricots]

ITT: a lot of people incorrecting each other who have no idea what free software is

Stallmans fault? Perhaps.

 

[ditto]

ITT: a lot of people incorrecting each other who have no idea what free software is

Stallmans fault? Perhaps.

There's a lot of corporate interest in redefining free software to mean "github project with code of conduct and corporate sponsorship (if you behave)" instead of protecting actual user freedom which is what Stallman is about.

 

[Jump]

There's a lot of corporate interest in redefining free software to mean "github project with code of conduct and corporate sponsorship (if you behave)" instead of protecting actual user freedom which is what Stallman is about.

I think its already been redefined. All the major projects have key people employed by Big Tech and all the infrastructure(like github) is owned by Big Tech. You can't be GNU with out towing the corporate woke line. Big chunks of GNU is basically run by IBM (thanks RedHat) and Microsoft now.

 

[Totally Awesome]

There's a lot of corporate interest in redefining free software to mean "github project with code of conduct and corporate sponsorship (if you behave)" instead of protecting actual user freedom which is what Stallman is about.

I think its already been redefined. All the major projects have key people employed by Big Tech and all the infrastructure(like github) is owned by Big Tech. You can't be GNU with out towing the corporate woke line. Big chunks of GNU is basically run by IBM (thanks RedHat) and Microsoft now.

Free Software Movement needs money coming in from big companies, because they don't make money on their own. If you refuse to sell your software, you don't make a profit.

 

[Likely]

he is bound to have a bad take somewhere

so what you're saying is that he, like most people, should quit twitter

 

[Jump]

Free Software Movement needs money coming in from big companies, because they don't make money on their own. If you refuse to sell your software, you don't make a profit.

The point of free software is profit? I thought it was freedom?
Lots of people in FS traded control of their projects for convenience or a job. Now they get to watch their work getting taken over by people who hate them or the evil corporations they spent decades fighting.

You can still take corporate donations yet keep full control. Just look at the OpenBSD projects. They get corp gibs but self host everything including their source repositories. IBM's weaponized trannies have no power there.

 

[Totally Awesome]

The point of free software is profit? I thought it was freedom?
Lots of people in FS traded control of their projects for convenience or a job. Now they get to watch their work getting taken over by people who hate them or the evil corporations they spent decades fighting.

You can still take corporate donations yet keep full control. Just look at the OpenBSD projects. They get corp gibs but self host everything including their source repositories. IBM's weaponized trannies have no power there.

FSM can't be free if they give their software away to corporations. They also can't be free if they take funding from corporations, because then the corporations just tell the FSM what to do, and threaten to take away their paycheck if they don't.

If free software doesn't make money, then FSM are forced to go get money from corporations or whoever else, and get controlled by whoever is paying them. If the FSM wants to be truly free, they need to be self monetized.

 

[Cherenkovblue]

Kind of funny how being open pedophilia advocate didn't cause him to lose his position. Only when he defended the actions of human trafficker Epstein, MIT deemed that he was too inconvenient to retain. It says a lot about the state of modern academia how James Watson gets unpersoned for trying to explain group disparities, while Stallman have been able to defend pedophilia for years.

He's surrounded by leftards - of COURSE supporting pedophilia wouldn't get him ousted.

 

[Nathan Higgers]

so what you're saying is that he, like most people, should quit twitter

Quit the internet, actually, since he posts most of these stuff on his website (in fact, he emails his political takes to some volunteers, and they put it up on his site ).

 

[Likely]

Stallman posts 1000 political notes a day and also participates in a dozen autistic mailing lists daily, he is bound to have a bad take somewhere (just like every other living human being), to want to completely cancel someone over a supposed bad take is absolutely retarded.

Needless to say, I don't even find this particular take bad, of all the things you could cancel Stallman for, this one is the dumbest. It's one of those things where you have play so much mental gymnastics and use the third definition of every word to make it sound bad. What he said in that email is considered bad by the people who accuse you of rape if you ask out a girl who doesn't like you.

To say that "well, he shouldn't have said that, it was a bad take, blablaba" is disingenuous. Back in the 80s they said you shouldn't try to give away your code for free because its communism, "you shouldn't do that". You can't ask people to stop thinking, discussing and debating topics because it hurts the fee-fees of some troon or a landwhale.

That said, Stallman himself is a wokester who is getting outwoked by other wokesters. In regular circumstances I'd happily enjoy seeing these faggots destroy each other, just not this time.

Okay but the reality is that:
- it's his job to promote the FSF and help it prosper
- continually miring the FSF in ridicule and controversy means he's bad at his job

You're conflating what you think "should be" and what "is actually" happening. They are two different things.

Personally, I think he should have been chastised for his writing on pedophilia (no evidence it harms kids my ass) and bestiality (it's not consent) years ago, and a large part of what is happening now is people saying "why is he still around"? I imagine that if he'd actually been (imo correctly) chastised for saying "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" 15 years ago, we wouldn't be in this position today. In this case, what I think doesn't matter. What matters is that RMS is making the news and indirectly tearing the FSF apart. That's drama (and also some of it has been really funny)

 

[cjöcker]

Personally, I think he should have been chastised for his writing on pedophilia (no evidence it harms kids my ass) and bestiality (it's not consent) years ago, and a large part of what is happening now is people saying "why is he still around"? I imagine that if he'd actually been (imo correctly) chastised for saying "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" 15 years ago, we wouldn't be in this position today. In this case, what I think doesn't matter. What matters is that RMS is making the news and indirectly tearing the FSF apart. That's drama (and also some of it has been really funny)

I can't think of anyone better than Richard Stallman to run the FSF. He's unapologetically communist and doesn't have a non-free bone in his body. Don't get me wrong, he is a fucking weirdo autist but I feel like it wouldn't be the same without Richard.

 

[Baguette]

RMS is a fat freetard and I would not have sex with him.


Also pragmatically, he will not be replaced with a suitable replacement. Instead, they'll appoint an incompetent PR hire to show the "FSF is for everyone" while what remains of the FSF goes down the drain. You're right though that it'll barely be noticeable with their current output.

So basically he would be replaced by a tranny lesbian autogynephile?

 

[Likely]

I can't think of anyone better than Richard Stallman to run the FSF. He's unapologetically communist and doesn't have a non-free bone in his body. Don't get me wrong, he is a fucking weirdo autist but I feel like it wouldn't be the same without Richard.

The FSF has lost most of its major corproate sponsors (important for fundraising, support, and promotion), the European wing of the FSF is splintering, the organizers of their convention are resigning, they've lost a ton of board members and executives, hundreds of influential open source developers are refusing to associate their projects with the FSF, and there's already movement internal to some orgs on forking the GPL2/3 into a new name and not maintained by the FSF.

The FSF has lost major revenue streams, support, and promoters. If they cannot claw back any of those, it may not survive or at least will become a useless, limp, vestigial association with no influence. All RMS has to do is say one more dumb thing that makes the news and it enters well into the realm of plausibility that the FSF loses MIT sponsorship as well.

I can't think of anyone better than Richard Stallman to run the FSF.

 

[Jones McCann]

Personally, I think he should have been chastised for his writing on pedophilia (no evidence it harms kids my ass) and bestiality (it's not consent) years ago, and a large part of what is happening now is people saying "why is he still around"?

It wouldn't matter to these people whether he was chastised or not. The kind of people who are pushing hard for RMS to be fired are mostly trannies and progressives, which tend to support pedophiles and other deviant behaviour at a much higher rate. The attack against RMS is a cynical ploy for power, nothing more. Don't assume these people actually have principles. I think Stallman even with his weirdness about sexual deviancy is 100x better than any corporate faggot on this planet. Death by a thousand cuts will be how free software will die once they remove the principled people like RMS who speak out.

 

[LordofCringe7206]

Okay but the reality is that:
- it's his job to promote the FSF and help it prosper
- continually miring the FSF in ridicule and controversy means he's bad at his job

You're conflating what you think "should be" and what "is actually" happening. They are two different things.

Personally, I think he should have been chastised for his writing on pedophilia (no evidence it harms kids my ass) and bestiality (it's not consent) years ago, and a large part of what is happening now is people saying "why is he still around"? I imagine that if he'd actually been (imo correctly) chastised for saying "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" 15 years ago, we wouldn't be in this position today. In this case, what I think doesn't matter. What matters is that RMS is making the news and indirectly tearing the FSF apart. That's drama (and also some of it has been really funny)

In fairness, it wouldn't take Stallman being involved for people to target the FSF. When people have a vested interest in destroying something or co-opting it for their own purposes, they are going to do so. The problem is Stallman doesn't have the capabilities to handle an onslaught of this magnitude. More importantly he deters people from rallying around him and defending him from these attackers because of how repulsive his behavior is.

Compare this to major publicized scandals involving YouTube personalities. Look at how people like AVGN or Pewdiepie managed to stay afloat through their controversies despite being targeted by very powerful people. They knew how to handle the fire being thrown their way, not give their detractors serious ammunition and how to get a lot of people to fight on their behalf. Now compare to controversies involving people like Sargon or the Paul brothers.

Stallman is far too big of a sperg to be in any serious position of power. It is made worse by the fact that he gets off on being a sperg and repulsing people anyway he can. In many ways he reminds me of someone like Nick Bate in this regard. Unlike Nick who denied the allegations when faced with criminal charges, Stallman on the other hand will continue to rile people up in the face of this controversy because he thrives off of all the attention and hatred being given to him.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

He doesn't need to be in the FSF to promote free software extremism, he can do that on his personal website. At least thousands of nerds will continue to read his writings. The FSF doesn't do anything that can't be forked or maintained elsewhere. They have no leverage at all, but the sponsors do.

 

[grump]

WTF are people still harping on about this sh#t? What are people even still angry about? Everybody I've asked seems to have completely forgot the Marvin Minsky story are now mad about some dumb business cards he's handed out for years. Like really, how can anybody still deny that this woke nonsense isn't a massive drain and distraction? Half the 'tech' workforce seems to be OCDing about this at any given hour of the day rather than I dunno actually doing some work?

 

[Rukario]

WTF are people still harping on about this sh#t? What are people even still angry about? Everybody I've asked seems to have completely forgot the Marvin Minsky story are now mad about some dumb business cards he's handed out for years. Like really, how can anybody still deny that this woke nonsense isn't a massive drain and distraction? Half the 'tech' workforce seems to be OCDing about this at any given hour of the day rather than I dunno actually doing some work?

I'd be surprised if most of the people who comment on the Stallman controversy on Twitter have written more than ten lines of useful code in the last ten years.

 

[Likely]

Stallman is far too big of a sperg to be in any serious position of power. It is made worse by the fact that he gets off on being a sperg and repulsing people anyway he can.

I can all but guarantee that at some point this year, likely when the FSF has their next big conference or board meeting, he's going to say something along the lines of "See? You couldn't get rid of me" and possibly even say something along the lines of "the SJWs have failed in their mission to unfairly harass me". Gonna reignite the entire damn thing.

I'd be surprised if most of the people who comment on the Stallman controversy on Twitter have written more than ten lines of useful code in the last ten years.

To be fair, the FSF is more than just code, it's also legal/licensing and culture. I think my personal stance on RMS is clear, and (frankly) despite being more qualified to have my name on one of these lists than the majority of signatories, there's no way I'm touching that poop. I can tell you with certainty that the majority of people on both pro and anti lists are low tier in both the software and legal sense. They are just on there to participate in the culture war. Putting your name on those lists will unnecessarily paint a huge target on your back, because many people on both sides are out to build clout.

 

[grump]

I can all but guarantee that at some point this year, likely when the FSF has their next big conference or board meeting, he's going to say something along the lines of "See? You couldn't get rid of me" and possibly even say something along the lines of "the SJWs have failed in their mission to unfairly harass me". Gonna reignite the entire damn thing.


To be fair, the FSF is more than just code, it's also legal/licensing and culture. I think my personal stance on RMS is clear, and (frankly) despite being more qualified to have my name on one of these lists than the majority of signatories, there's no way I'm touching that poop. I can tell you with certainty that the majority of people on both pro and anti lists are low tier in both the software and legal sense. They are just on there to participate in the culture war. Putting your name on those lists will unnecessarily paint a huge target on your back, because many people on both sides are out to build clout.

I'm not saying to put your name on some github or agree with Stallman on everything or whatever. But the stand by and do nothing mentality is a big part of why we've gotten to the point where we're discussing microaggressions and 57 genders and sjws are so disproportionately powerful these days.

One of if not the greatest weakness of the right/conservatives/whatever you want to call them is that for some reason they tend to be much less activist that the left. Rank and file ringwing supporters tend not to be into politics as much preferring to live out their lives and the few that are tend to take a reactive approach. They're just opposition rather than offering any vision of their own. Leftwingers on the other hand live and breath politics to a much bigger degree and a much wider breadth. They may be crazy but they rightly see politics as total war, not just to be fought in the ballot box but in the classroom, entertainment, culture, etc. When rightwingers try to ape this they often don't understand it as well and come off as clumsily institutional and bureaucratic. I don't know if its something inherent in the personality of conservatives/liberals but this has been the general pattern since at least the French Revolution.

Because of this politics has trended toward acting like a one way ratchet where either random crazy left wing idea gets enacted now or it gets enacted later. If the people stood up and slapped down the wokeites every once in awhile maybe there would be a little bit more sanity in society nowadays.
Just an observation.