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

In Defense of Richard Stallman

geoff.greer.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#131

Post by t0astbread »

blowski wrote: post #85
sergiosgc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. Every episode I read about fell into the category of "socially awkward adult male". If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. By all means, point me to a real abuse scenario by Stallman. I like being prove…

Agreed. If Stallman was a charming, charismatic, handsome guy with a square jaw and good hair the whole conversation would probably have a different lens placed on it.

Then he wouldn't be seen as an awkward guy who doesn't know any better but instead as an arrogant dick.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#132

Post by meerita »

Barrin92 wrote: post #10

> They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that he had a mattress in his office. It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. > He held his positions at MIT, GNU, and the FSF for over thirty years, and in that time nobody accused h…

He made feel unwelcome both women and men. Not just women. It was part of his personality.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#133

Post by jimhefferon »

efdee wrote: post #93
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring a legal age of consent, refusing to accept the accepted definitions of assault and rape, and claiming they were actually willing are emphatically not just "socially awkward".

Claiming they were actually willing and claiming they presented themselves as actually willing are two very different things. These are very dangerous accusations you are throwing around - you might do well to stick to what he actually said and wrote.

It seems to me not credible that a 70 year old Minsky believed that a quite young lady would, on minutes of meeting him, be so attracted that she would be anxious to be intimate.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#134

Post by dpq »

spats1990 wrote: post #104
metiscus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite some specific evidence for your specific claims?

On his website, for example, Stallman says that he "reject[s] the term sexual assault" completely.[1] ~edit: I have included the full quote below as I did not intend to twist/misrepresent in any way. Stallman writes: " The term is applied to a broad range of actions, ranging from stealing a kiss to rape, as well as other things in between. It acts as propaganda for treating them the same. There seems to be an excepti…

...and does a great job explaining his pov. It's not like he's saying that sexual assaults do not exist, and people should be able to rape / immodestly touch whoever they please with impunity.

> Sexual assault: The term is applied to a broad range of actions, ranging from stealing a kiss to rape, as well as other things in between. It acts as propaganda for treating them the same.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#135

Post by klingonopera »

enriquto wrote: post #40
Insanity wrote: post #17

I don't know RMS personally, but from what I've seen and read about him, he's a bit eccentric. There's nothing wrong with that, but people tend to dislike or distrust those whom are different from what society considers 'normal'. I suspect part of the 'witch hunt' was in part fueled by this eccentricity.

> I suspect part of the 'witch hunt' was in part fueled by this eccentricity. It seems to me that the exact opposite is happening here. He is "hunted" because of his uncompromising stance on freedom for software users. The eccentricity is just an excuse, useful to gather a horde of angry people, but inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Doesn't this imply that proprietary software vendors were pushing for his resignation? I mean, yeah, sure, but in all honesty, I never considered the FSF to be that influential.

If anything, I'd almost agree on the fact that RMS made (as ironic as this sounds) selling free software more difficult than if it was any standard corporate drone in his place. He's a great idealist, but he's not really good at selling things...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#136

Post by Aeolun »

Barrin92 wrote: post #10

> They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that he had a mattress in his office. It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. > He held his positions at MIT, GNU, and the FSF for over thirty years, and in that time nobody accused h…

Then maybe we should have removed him for one of the previous instances of awkwardness, because the message I see here in no way justifies any of the things that subsequently happened.

I would not call it anything less than a disgrace for anyone involved.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#137

Post by equalunique »

Frans-Willem wrote: post #26
asutekku wrote: post #3

He might’ve been an influential figure, but he’s still a creep. Just because someone made something once doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye towards them.

The article also clearly states "As far as I can tell, the worst allegations against Stallman involve him being a socially clueless aspie", which I believe matches your "he's still a creep". I tend to agree, he's not a socially well adjusted person. But did that really interfere with his work for the FSF? From what I can gather, he did a pretty good job at it :-/

In a sense, the concept of the GPL is evidence of social mastery over mal-adjustment.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#138

Post by enriquto »

latchkey wrote: post #58
youdontknowtho wrote: post #25

The article says you don't get the free software movement without RMS. What about BSD?

Free != Open Here is a good explanation of the difference... https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/Free-vs-Ope...

The BSD are certainly Free Software today, for they clearly respect the four freedoms. They did not exist, though, at the beginning of the GNU project.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#139

Post by twelvechairs »

viraptor wrote: post #110
sergiosgc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. Every episode I read about fell into the category of "socially awkward adult male". If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. By all means, point me to a real abuse scenario by Stallman. I like being prove…

> If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness. If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader. That doesn't remove anything from their achievements and abilities to contribute or to spread new ideas.…

> If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader.

Isn't the whole point of a 'leader' that they challenge the status quo not bite their tongue to follow it?

Post reply on HN