Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remove Richard Stallman

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#41

Post by eesmith »

badatshipping wrote: post #18

I've noticed that people who write posts like this like to quote their subject, and then go, oh my, how shocking! what an appalling thing to say! without addressing the thing that was said, which in this case was (among other things): “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.” He was responding to…

> People like Stallman don't get offended

What? Quoting Stallman himself at https://stallman.org/notes/2010-jan-apr.html :

"I have often felt offended by criticism of my views, but people have a right to criticize and even insult ideas they disagree with, so I learned to live with it and Muslims must learn it too. Nothing that people do or say is entitled to immunity from criticism — not even the Church of Emacs."

Also:

"The idea of charging people to use a toilet offends me so much that I absolutely refuse to use a pay toilet." - https://stallman.org/notes/2017-mar-jun.html

"I consider this just as offensive as barring women from seeing a film would be, or barring them from driving their children to school." - https://stallman.org/notes/2015-mar-jun.html

"I don't object to the existence of the song "God Bless America" although I find it insipid, and I love Machaut's Messe de Notre Dame despite its explicitly Catholic text and purpose--but I would take offense at the use of either one in an official context which implies government endorsement of the statements about religion." - https://stallman.org/notes/archive-2002.html

Or, he was offended when I refused to say "GNU/Linux".

Since he certainly does get offended, the rest of your comment doesn't seem to apply.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#42

Post by abeger »

quotemstr wrote: post #29

People like the author of this article --- people who haven't accomplished a hundredth of what RMS has --- have power only because reasonable people fear that they'll be next if they don't join the mob. You don't have to be afraid. We don't have to put up with cancel culture. All that's necessary is to just ignore these angry articles and focus on meaningful work, treating anger as a distraction.

They have power because people fear that they'll be the next one whose sexual assault is publicly written off by "luminaries of the industry".

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#43

Post by DanBC »

beatgammit wrote: post #40
sumeno wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were human trafficking victims. They were raped.

That's what statutory rape means... rape. The question is whether assault was involved. And this is completely unrelated to whether the girls were trafficked, unless there's evidence that he conspired with Epstein. And that's the type of hair splitting that RMS does, and he needs to be more careful about it. He's not wrong in what he said, but he could be wrong for saying it.

What do you think assault means? Do you mistakenly think "assault" means "force is used"?

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#44

Post by abeger »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #11
sheldor wrote: post #9

"Did I even really know who Richard Stallman was before those emails? To be honest, not really" Oh, dear

Imagine it, someone who works (possibly at some remove) with a set of tools without necessarily engaging in a deep, intensive study of the figureheads who led in their creation. And then to engage with the written words of that figurehead as if they were on some sort of equal footing. The gall!

I seriously can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#45

Post by badatshipping »

eesmith wrote: post #41
badatshipping wrote: post #18

I've noticed that people who write posts like this like to quote their subject, and then go, oh my, how shocking! what an appalling thing to say! without addressing the thing that was said, which in this case was (among other things): “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.” He was responding to…

> People like Stallman don't get offended What? Quoting Stallman himself at https://stallman.org/notes/2010-jan-apr.html : "I have often felt offended by criticism of my views, but people have a right to criticize and even insult ideas they disagree with, so I learned to live with it and Muslims must learn it too. Nothing that people do or say is entitled to immunity from criticism — not even the Church of Emacs." Al…

The article takes issue with Stallman commenting callously on a sensitive topic, having a view the author finds offensive, and directing those comments insensitively toward the wrong people. She never presents an argument why what he said was problematic. This makes me believe that regardless of the correctness of what he's saying, the mere fact that he's "defending" this side of the issue is itself offensive to her.

Suppose Stallman suddenly wanted to optimize himself to offend the author of this post as little as possible. Having a more correct point of view would hardly move his metrics. Having more tact would, drastically. That was my point in bringing up the tact article.

You're entirely right; everyone gets offended by something. I should've been more precise.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#46

Post by toast0 »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #37
badatshipping wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did he try to absolve Minsky of guilt? I thought the thesis of his defense of Minsky was: "Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism." "The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading…

This is such an odd argument. No one kvetches over the meaning of "murder" because some are more brutal or premeditated than others.

Isn't that the whole point of manslaughter? Killing people is (usually) a crime, but it's not always murder.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#47

Post by ignoranceprior »

kemonocode wrote: post #24

So how many more people have to die before we finally understand cancel culture is an abysmally bad idea? Not that I believe RMS is in immediate danger, but for anyone else who's more weak-willed, a mean-spirited article like this would be a career-ending, if not life-ending matter.

Serious question, not a gotcha: Who has died as a result of cancel culture? Are you only using the words "die" and "life-ending" figuratively here, or is there actual precedent?

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#48

Post by beatgammit »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #10
beatgammit wrote: post #8

I think the problem here is that Stallman seems to value technical correctness over propriety, and doesn't seem to value political correctness at all. I get his point that using the term "assault" is probably incorrect, though it may be the correct term in some jurisdictions. The (usually unofficial) term I'd use is "statutory rape", which covers any nonforcible sexual activity between an adult and a minor (roughly p…

"nonforcible" is 100% bullshit in this context. A university professor in his 70s with liver spots on his bald pate who is "approached" by a 17 year old girl for sex on his rich buddy's island is knowingly participating in rape, full stop.

If the statutory rape involved force, I'm sure the sentence would be greater. But rape doesn't need to involve force.

I obviously can't speak for Stallman, but I don't think he was trying to make the case that the guy was innocent, I think he was arguing that what he did may be okay in other jurisdictions and that it isn't technically assault. That's it.

Stallman is usually very precise in his speech and doesn't go out of his way to counter potential misunderstandings of what says. I see that as a problem, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#49

Post by aortega »

beatgammit wrote: post #40
sumeno wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were human trafficking victims. They were raped.

That's what statutory rape means... rape. The question is whether assault was involved. And this is completely unrelated to whether the girls were trafficked, unless there's evidence that he conspired with Epstein. And that's the type of hair splitting that RMS does, and he needs to be more careful about it. He's not wrong in what he said, but he could be wrong for saying it.

>That's what statutory rape means... rape.

It's not the same, or else they would use the same terms, do you agree?

Thing is, definition of crimes are better left to experts, I.E. Lawyers. It's not an easy task in any way as you can see.

> He's not wrong in what he said, but he could be wrong for saying it.

You can never be wrong by speaking the truth. And this is what RMS did.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#50

Post by aortega »

sheldor wrote: post #9

"Did I even really know who Richard Stallman was before those emails? To be honest, not really" Oh, dear

>"Did I even really know who Richard Stallman was before those emails? To be honest, not really"

She auto-disqualifies herself. At least she's honest.

Post reply on HN