this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
44 points (82.4% liked)

Opensource

1524 readers
89 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

CreditsIcon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

You might want to remember that he has done more to advance open source software than perhaps any other person on this planet. You don't get to take away someone's achievements just because you don't like them...

[–] Orygin 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't see anyone trying to take away his achievement. The report and most commenters even recognize his contribution.
Also this goes more deeply than "not liking them", he has some morally reprehensible views. I admit I haven't read the whole report, but I have seen some of the things it touches on in the past and it's pretty damning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Stallman earned his position of influence as a voting board member through his software-related achievements, not his sexual attitudes. Removing him for the latter absolutely WOULD take away from those achievements. Paying lip service in the report doesn't change that. In another era when homosexuality was illegal, Alan Turing was removed from his position in British intelligence because of being gay. The two situations aren't identical, but they don't have to be. The point is that they both earned their positions, and taking away what they earned because of unrelated moral disapproval is wrong. This isn't a defense of any of Stallman's attitudes - I'm saying no such defense is necessary or relevant.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I gave him credit for that while also saying we shouldn't platform him or give him attention until and unless he recants and / or apologizes. Just like the report says.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think, this is what contemporary cancel culture usually tries to do.

I also think, that this is wrong on most occasions. Maybe sometimes possible damage warrants cancelling someone, I don't know

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I agree. Uproars like this reflect an irrational fear that rewarding someone for one reason also rewards everything else about them, including stuff we don't approve of. We see a ton of crowd-sourced demonization nowadays. Yes, you cured cancer but you also liked the wrong tweets, so no Nobel Prize for you, spawn of Satan.