Hacker News Reader

> You're using the same language of the weapon's builder to try to accuse me of defending child molesters.

Drawing parallels between the way you attack the character of someone rather than the merits of their argument is accusing you of defending child molesters? Are you implying Stallman himself is a child molester? I'm thoroughly confused.

It was my understanding that Stallman was imploring people to use a more accurate term in describing his friend's actions because he felt the other term invoked harsher connotations. How does that make him a child molester?

> It's not my fault if she is a nobody (she really is) that builds weapons for the US military (she really does)

What does any of that have to do with what she said? You're not arguing the merits of what she said but rather that we shouldn't listen to her because of her notoriety and career choice.

> > It's not my fault if she is a nobody (she really is) that builds weapons for the US military (she really does)

> What does any of that have to do with what she said?

Person with questionable morals [1] making moral judgement claims suggests that the whole thing was manufactured. I wouldn't even exclude a possibility that she received some money to publish the things that she did.

[1] as her career choice clearly shows she has no problem with wars, which are known to cause death, including death of children, actual rape of young girls, organ harvesting and pretty much anything awful you can think of in this world wars have

She worked on the guidance systems for an autonomous ground vehicle for the DoD that's basically a proof of concept at this point.

We're equating that to war monger?

> war monger

war mongers become war mongers one drone at the time.

As was the atomic bomb at one point in time. There may be exceptions for unintended uses of the technology you develop (a la Alfred Nobel), but there's not a lot of wiggle room when you work for the DoD.

You were hired to develop things that will eventually be used to kill people. That's the end goal of the job. Whether you make anything usable or not is somewhat beside the point, the intention is still there.

How many people were killed by tech that uses FSF code? Quite a lot I bet...

> I'm thoroughly confused.

You are indeed.

> Drawing parallels between the way you attack the character

I didn't attack the character, I only portayed the character for who she is.

No judgment attached, just the crude reality: she builds weapons for US military and uses a very aggressive and dehumanizing vocabulary.

I would never use "remove" when referring to another human being, alive or dead.

> It was my understanding that Stallman was imploring people to use a more accurate term in describing his friend's actions because he felt the other term invoked harsher connotations

He was concerned that the term "sexual assault" would be disputable by critics.

because legally and in layman's terms has a completely different connotations (people associate assault with physical violence, the law doesn't)

> What does any of that have to do with what she said?

I think it's interesting that a person who would like to "remove" other people ends up building weapons instead of schools for refugee kids.

Sorry, but what is wrong with working for the US military in the grand scheme of things? Would Russian or Chinese military be a preferred option?

Certainly seems to me to be far preferable to working for Facebook or Google or something like that.

Whether she is a nobody or not, it should not come as a surprise that for 99.(9)% of humanity, all of us here, as well as RMS are just as much nobodies.

> It's not even my fault if RMS never molested anybody (he really didn't), never raped anybody (he really didn't), never hurt anybody (he really didn't) and never committed a crime (he really didn't).

Not having committed a crime is your bar for "a good man"? Working for you must be pretty chill. Yeah, people can be unfit for their job even without having committed crimes (caught and found guilty, to be more precise). Especially in leadership roles.

> Not having committed a crime is your bar for "a good man"?

Usually, yes.

> people can be unfit for their job even without having committed crimes

But this is not the case.

> caught and found guilty, to be more precise

We're all innocent until proven guilty.

It applies to me, to you and to everybody else.

> Especially in leadership roles.

Take this as an unwanted advice: a leader is someone who would never fuck you in the arse to save theirs.

Stallman would never fuck you in the arse.

Proof is he's been fucked by those wanting to silence him, but has no bad feelings against who did it.

This is being fit for leadership roles in my book.

I don't disagree with any of that, I'm simply point out that your remarks about this woman's notoriety and career choice are ironic.

You're attacking her in much the say way the media is attacking Stallman when they attribute his appearance and proclivity for eating shit off his foot as clear evidence he's a pedophile.

> You're attacking her in much the say way

I'm not attacking her, but I understand why you think that.

Where do you think you might find sexism, misogynism, unsafety, threatening situations, in the US department of defence working with military personnel or in the office of RMS at MIT?

I think the odds are all in favour of the military, but this girl is happy to build drones for the military, while supporting the idea that RMS is a toxic man that need to be removed immediately.

Isn't that amusing?

If I didn't already know, I would have wanted to know about it!

Aren't instances of sexism, misogynism and threatening situations coming from RMS himself and going back decades numerous and well-documented at this point?

Nope.

And not even badly documented, let alone well documented.