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

Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#21

Post by NotATroll »

CPLX wrote: post #14
kjksf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perfect example of mob mentality in action. At no point Stallman was defending sex with minors. And yet, here you are, extremely offended at him for something he didn't say.

"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." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be ba…

Don't forget the good old.

> The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html

Just ctrl+f for necro. You'll find it.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#22

Post by CPLX »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #17
CPLX wrote: post #10

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

While I agree what RMS said was incorrect, let's recast CPLX's arguments into the Middle Ages and see what happens: > Our culture has made a very bright line decision that being an atheist is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely ac…

Yes. You have aptly demonstrated two things here:

1) There are social norms

2) They change sometimes

Neither of those is relevant though here.

Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired?

Assuming we agree that advocating for some things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with my observations:

1) Saying it’s cool for adults to fuck minors is definitely on that list

2) I’m ok with that

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#23

Post by CPLX »

javagram wrote: post #20
CPLX wrote: post #10

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

Stallman made those questionable, problematic statements on his blog a decade ago. He was cancelled because of a email thread related to Epstein that media outlets lied about. If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago?

> If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago?

Probably because people just noticed them?

Saying “he’s been doing this unacceptable thing forever and appears to be consistent” is not really compelling either.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#24

Post by mikeash »

scrumper wrote: post #15
mikeash wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when did anyone ever expect due process when being fired? This is a world where you can be fired for showing up 30 seconds late because of a road closure.

Is that the way it should be? And if not, are you saying that there's no point in arguing for something better?

Maybe not, but this seems like a terrible way to advocate for something better. Thousands of people get unjustly fired every day for much worse reasons than this. Why is this one the one to fight?

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#25

Post by [deleted] »

CPLX wrote: post #22
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree what RMS said was incorrect, let's recast CPLX's arguments into the Middle Ages and see what happens: > Our culture has made a very bright line decision that being an atheist is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely ac…

Yes. You have aptly demonstrated two things here: 1) There are social norms 2) They change sometimes Neither of those is relevant though here. Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? Assuming we agree that advocating for some things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with my observations: 1) Saying it’s cool for adults to fuck minors is definitel…

[deleted]

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#26

Post by javagram »

CPLX wrote: post #23
javagram wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman made those questionable, problematic statements on his blog a decade ago. He was cancelled because of a email thread related to Epstein that media outlets lied about. If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago?

> If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago? Probably because people just noticed them? Saying “he’s been doing this unacceptable thing forever and appears to be consistent” is not really compelling either.

They were public statements on his blog, people certainly noticed them earlier.

It just wasn’t considered enough whereas media headlines (falsely) stating he defended Epstein resulted in immediate action

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#28

Post by emiliobumachar »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #6
emiliobumachar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SJWs are out of control and doing real damage, but don't generalize your grudge to half of humanity.

> SJWs are out of control and doing real damage [citation needed]

We're commenting on an article about Richard Stallman being removed for something he did not say. That's the damage I'm talking about.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#29

Post by javagram »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #27

RMS is pretty old (66). I wonder if he was given the option to fight it but decided he'd rather retire than deal with all the politics, or if it was a fait accompli situation where he only had the choice between resigning and being fired.

The FSF is his life’s work, and he is getting close to retirement age.

I could see the decision as having been at least somewhat voluntary if he wants to keep the FSF’s mission relevant (GNOME and the SFC were threatening to break ties).

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#30

Post by 5F36B5F62640 »

Stallman's mistake was expressing his key point in two sentences using many words of three or more syllables.

This apparently put it beyond the reading comprehension level of the reporters at Vice and Daily Beast, and of Selam G., and so his point was completely misunderstood/misrepresented.

Post reply on HN