Comment by bcrescimanno | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcrescimanno | Hacker News Reader

I tweeted earlier that I see RMS as the Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) of Free Software. He may not have started out this way; but these days he's completely single issue. If you're not doing free software 100% his way; you not only disagree with him but you are actually evil. Not just free software; but free software as RMS defines it(see GNU/Linux) or you're wrong. He's so blinded by his own zealotry that I'd argue that beyond the inner, hard-core "free software circle, he's seen as much of an embarrassment to the notion of free software as Phelps and Westboro are likely seen by other Christians.

I've felt this way a long time about RMS; his comment about Steve Jobs's death was uncalled for--but it really was well-within character. Just like Phelps and Westboro are expected to show up at soldier's funerals to protest, we've come to expect this type of shit from RMS--and I agree with the OP that it's time to stop just accepting it.

[Edit] I want to state that RMS, like everyone, is fully entitled to his opinion and that opinion carries no more or less weight than my own. Moreover, you're completely entitled to agree with him. What I do have a problem with is what the OP described: he doesn't belong at the head of a major organization, nor does he belong at the apex of the free software movement. Beyond my earlier described "inner circle," in the past several years, he's done more to tarnish the image of the free software community than to help it.

While I don't always agree with RMS, I think he truly believes everything he says.

I don't think the same of Fred Phelps. I long ago reached the conclusion that he tries to say the most inflammatory thing possible wether he really believes it or not. I have no idea why, but I believe he has some other agenda than just the condemnation of homosexuality.

I've even almost seriously entertained the idea that he is a closet extreme atheist out to discredit theists.

Naww, he's just a zealot. The history of religion is the history of zealotry, as well as oppression and violence. Funny how you think he must be an atheist, when he fits the religious zealot profile to a 't.' Phelps fits the character of so many religious leaders who have millions of followers and millions of dollars. Phelps' big issue is that he's poor at monetizing his crazy, unlike other successful bigots like Falwell and Graham.

I'm sick of the conspiracy theories that he must be some kind of secret agent. Bigotry and hatred is typical in religion, especially for homosexuals. Theists need to call him an atheist or a con man to make them feel better about being theists and following the philosophy of 1st century madmen.

Most zealots have a strong conviction, and will do whatever is necessary to further their cause. Sometimes what they deem necessary is shocking to the rest of us.

However, Phelps "ministry" seems to exist, simply to shock. He's like the one dimensional villain who is evil for the sake of being evil.

Since his public persona seems like a fictional character, I assume he is one.

>He's like the one dimensional villain who is evil for the sake of being evil.

That's how I see the Pope or your typical small town preacher, yet I believe their sincerity. I'm not sure why you get to sit there and decide who is sincere and insincere without any proof. They are Christians, they follow scripture, they have opinions and audience. They're not con men, they are simply misguided and in IMHO evil because its impossible to have a non-evil religion. At the end of the day, believing woo that justifies your biases is evil.

Phelps is just a Christian. Accept it. Move on.

Given the degree to which Phelps has in fact monetized his craziness, I'm personally inclined to believe that it's at least partly an act. His whole family regularly engages in activities that are specifically calculated to make people angry enough to do something, and then they sue everyone they can get their hands on for as much money as possible.

I don't think he's an atheist, though. I know plenty of Christians who are almost as crazy and definitely not acting. I think he's just a fundamentalist who's smart enough to take advantage of adding a little on the top; a sort of larger-than-life "media personality."

Wow, I hadn't even read this comment yet. Who is the zealot again? Everyone, EVERYONE, including you, believes uncountable things purely through conditioning, purely through repeated exposure without direct confrontation of the ideas with the conscious mind. There is no evidence suggesting there are any people who believe only things for which they've carefully deliberated; in fact, there is lots of evidence that this is not the case. You believe untold woo this very moment while spewing sanctimonious claptrap.

If you're right, it's a pretty deep con he's playing:

www.atheistnexus.org/page/nate-phelps-2009-aa-speech

trigger warning/tl;dr: Phelps family is every bit as horrifically abusive as you'd imagine.

Some corollary of Poe's law applies here. If some religious guy seems too batshit insane to be true, he's just as likely to be real as he is to be batshit insane.

As an atheist, I think it's pretty clear from your post that hatred and bigotry is alive and well outside of religion. You know what else is typical in religion, including Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc.? Tolerance, love, and generosity. If you don't know religious people who are the epitome of these qualities and find strength to exhibit them from their religion, you are living in a bubble.

> "Tolerance, love, and generosity. If you don't know religious people who are the epitome of these qualities and find strength to exhibit them from their religion, you are living in a bubble."

Certainly there are many people of all cultures and religions who are tolerant, loving and generous. But mostly to those of their own culture/religion.

As for living in bubbles, that is _precisely_ the purpose of culture/religion - to enclose the individual with a selected group, keep him/her under control and prevent him/her from interacting with outside groups. Take food taboos as an example - it's difficult to be friends with someone if you can't eat with them.

And while there may be hatred and bigotry outside of religion, it pales compared to what religion has given the world. Of course I consider most "-ism"s to be religions too.

>hatred and bigotry outside of religion, it pales compared to what religion has given the world.

The 20th century is evidence enough that man is capable of resorting to the worst possible barbarism without invoking deities as justification, plenty of other excuses are readily available. Going by death count, political purges in officially atheist communist nations took the cake... by far. Ethnicity was a distant second behind politics, and religion a distant third.

> Of course I consider most "-ism"s to be religions too.

Communism, solipsism, humanism, socialism, nihilism? If the majority of philosophical and political beliefs, even those with a stated opposition to religion, are now redefined to be religion, then "religious belief" is no longer a subset of "belief", and you've expanded the categorical definition of that word to be useless at anything other than proving yourself correct.

Going by death count, political purges in officially atheist communist nations

Be careful how you phrase this - these purges were not done in the name of atheism. They do not compare 'death from atheism' to 'death from religion'. It's an important distinction that needs to be made.

Some think he's just a novel con-artist:

1. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/gro...

2. http://kanewj.com/wbc/

Looks like it equates to fairly decent take-home pay given that he probably works far less than the 2080 full time hours a year for it.

And remember, it's a church, so it's all tax free.

Now that I believe.

I would say that a very significant contingent of Protestant church men are in it for the money. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that they're all sincere -- cons often come with a generous helping of scriptural glaze.

Unless you're working a seriously crazy angle like Phelps, there's generally more money to be made outside the church than within it. I think most people who have devoted their lives to a church are either sincere, or they started out sincere and started working an angle after becoming disillusioned.

Phelps is the personal embodiment of Poe's Law.

As a side note, it is annoying to see you guys talk about a Phelbs that is not known outside US, and do not seem to be an interesting fellow. At least when you were talking about Jobs, the remains of the world knew who he was.

The Hanlon and Occam Razors, when applied to Phelps: he's a deeply closeted gay man who has to keep doubling down on his cognitive dissonance in order to rationalize obsessing over gay sex, even to the point of violently manipulating his own family.

The fact is though, RMS, today in 2011, isn't helping the free software movement any more than Phelps is helping Christianity

It's hard to understand the internal reality that either is basing their actions on anymore, but it doesn't change the fact that they both see the world through their own singular vision which they're no longer able to coherently share with others and convince others of - they've taken their premises as axioms and just go around preaching hate to a shrinking choir and offending the rest of us with their actions

If Larry Ellison had just died after his company purposely screwed up MySQL, OpenOffice, Java, Hudson, OpenSolaris ... RMSs comment would still be tasteless and inappropriate

I'm sure that if Larry Ellison died, it wouldn't only be RMS making this comment.

The inflammatory agenda makes sure his group stays alienated from society and within his control.

Fred Phelps is a lawyer and they simply do the things they do to get a violent reaction out of people so that they can then sue those individuals. It's simply about making money in one of the most scummy way possible (far worse than patent trolls even). I thought this was pretty common knowledge but judging by the comments under your post I guess not.

EDIT: With that being said, RMS and Phelps are nothing at all alike. RMS truly believes what he says and that his beliefs are right. Phelps is just an ass trying to elicit violent responses to get money out of people already dealing with horrible tragedies.

The problem is, RMS is part Fred Phelps, but also part Jesus Christ because he sortof started this whole thing, if my understanding is correct. Just like you got to respect Steve Jobs' accomplishments despite his own personal failings, I think (granted to a lesser extent) we gotta hand it to RMS, despite being a tactless fanatic, his moral compass always steers us toward the ideal for Free Software. And I should note I don't even agree with Free Software as a moral imperative, but freedom gives software more value none the less, and it's good to have someone there to point us in the right direction.

   I think (granted to a lesser extent) we gotta hand it to RMS

Why "to a lesser extent"?

I'm honestly curious because from my outsider's perspective (being affiliated with neither Apple nor FSF), RMS is vastly more admirable than CEO of a for-profit company.

The ability to cater to customers and sell them expensive products is precious and certainly good for the shareholders. And, to a lesser degree, even for the customers I guess... but why this worship and e-drama? How can turning huge profits be comparable to FSF's mission -- lofty even if you don't identify with it -- and why are non-shareholders so ecstatic about it? (leaving Job's death aside now, R.I.P. man)

I don't know that people worship him just out of love of his products, but in more of a sort of hero worship. Here's a guy who had an uncompromising vision that nobody appreciated until he was proven right, and changed the world as a result. It's something we all want to see in ourselves.

Are you talking about RMS or about Jobs?

When I first saw the post by RMS, I tried to hold back my initial desire to simply post "He's an asshole". I tried to take the emotion away from it but found that I couldn't. I couldn't find the right words so I posted nothing.

You posted my exact feelings in a more intelligent way than I ever could have.

RMS and people like him in the free software community is why I have never 100% committed to a free software way of doing things. I do a lot of development in Linux but I do just as much in Windows. Even though I contribute to the open source world in my own small way and see the importance of it, I find myself caring less and less about the philosophy behind it, At least when it comes to the zealots that are involved.

We all know that both Apple and Microsoft have pulled asshole moves before. But I can't help thinking that zealots like RMS would do the same thing if the FSF was in control.

Really, RMS being a dick keeps you from using, developing, and supporting free software?

Your level of support is not that great, then.

I didn't read anything about being kept from "using, developing, and supporting free software".

I did read: "Even though I contribute to the open source world in my own small way and see the importance of it, I find myself caring less and less about the philosophy behind it".

Please enlighten us, what level of support would you deem acceptable? Anything less than complete and exclusive acceptance of the goals of the FSF?

I'm sure a middle road exists.

You're right, my level of support now is not as great as it could be. When I was initially introduced to the idea, I loved it. I still do. This is why I am still involved. But I do not like the zealotry behind it. You can believe in an ideal without casting out everyone who does not fall in line 100%.

I use and contribute to open source because I believe a lot of the best technology comes from it. I do not use it because I believe closed source is inherently evil.

RMS is a dick and I can accept that. What bothers me is the pass that he gets when he is a dick and the percentage of others who are like him in the free software community.

The fundamental difference between the ones like Apple/Microsoft and RMS/FSF is that the latter don't seek to be in control in the way the former do. RMS/FSF actually oppose to the idea and instead seek to educate people for the peoples own benefit.

I don't see choice in the message when it comes to the FSF. I do in other open source communities but not when it comes to the FSF. I see "use our alternative" but I do not see choice.

Choice would be to educate someone about the benefits of open source technology and then let them make the decision on what philosophy they would like to follow. Not, "your company choose to make your product closed source so you are now going down an evil path". I'm exaggerating a bit so I can illustrate my point. You can think that your philosophy is the right path without necessarily thinking that the other path is "evil".

> Not just free software; but free software as RMS defines it

Trouble is, RMS is the guy who defined free software in the first place. If you want to do something else than what he intends, it's probably better to pick a different term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com