In Defense of Richard Stallman • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#191

Post by loktarogar » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:10 AM UTC

ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #118

mbel wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. Which seem to go against all goals of diversity and inclusiveness. If we strive for more diverse community we have accept quirks of some people. Only in purely homogeneous group everybody can be comfortable and not offended.

Society: "We must embrace neuro-diversiry" Midly Autistic, not-good-looking man: Shows signs of autism Society: "No! Not like that! Kill it! Kill it!"

Autism isn't a catch-all excuse for his behaviour and using it as one spits in the face of people with autism who face the same challenges and work hard to improve.

Stallman didn't care.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#192

Post by Insanity » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:10 AM UTC

klingonopera wrote: post #135

enriquto wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thing…

Yeah, his appeal to ideals might work for some (it does appeal to me). But surely that's not the best way of selling things to the majority of the population, let alone companies.

I'm tempted to agree with you that he might have made it more difficult. It's not just the message you use to sell something, it's also the way in which. If people associate FSF too much with RMS it could be harmful for FSF, because they'll assume it just appeals to the 'eccentric bunch'.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#193

Post by chippy » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:11 AM UTC

In the words of the Artificial Intelligence from War Games "this is all a strange game in which the only winning move is not to play."

Let's hope that we can still play chess together.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#194

Post by efdee » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:11 AM UTC

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…

He also explains why, and he raises a good point. Sexual assault covers a lot of different things, but to many if not most people it implies the worst.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#195

Post by rusk » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:11 AM UTC

lagadu wrote: post #87

CPLX wrote: post #47

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…

> His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your particular flavour of groupthink and no other? Nice thought policing there.

> particular flavour of groupthink

LOL - just because of the particular kind of "groupthink" you're talking about here.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#196

Post by Aeolun » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:11 AM UTC

zonidjan wrote: post #144

> Stallman made some technically-correct-but-utterly-tactless comments No. No, he didn't. He made some technically incorrect comments. Regardless of whether or not what Minsky did should be considered assault, it is considered assault, and (more importantly) it was considered at the time Minsky is alleged to have done it. Stallman did not say that what Minsky did shouldn't be assault. He said that Minsky shouldn't be…

I don’t follow. According to your statements having sex with a consenting young female is assault?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#197

Post by fold_right » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:11 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #161

ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society: "We must embrace neuro-diversiry" Midly Autistic, not-good-looking man: Shows signs of autism Society: "No! Not like that! Kill it! Kill it!"

Stop using autism to defend someone who's said that raping children doesn't harm them.

Children? ...

Honestly curious, when did he say that?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#198

Post by tom_mellior » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:11 AM UTC

twelvechairs wrote: post #139

viraptor wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

How would it be the point of a leader in free software to challenge the status quo that women are welcome in the workplace and in free software?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#199

Post by klingonopera » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:12 AM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #175

klingonopera wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't get X good thing without Y bad behaviour. Consider the following: Humans have limited capacity, thus time, money and energy spent limiting Y inhibits resources available to creating X.

Consider the following: the existence and promotion of Y bad behaviour reduces the ability and willingness of humans to contribute to creating X, and the return of investment of time, money and energy spent in limiting Y results in more overall time, money and energy available to create X. Better yet, consider the following: things are more complicated that ridiculous oversimplification.

Convenient, to be able to decide, when and where to apply Occam's Razor.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#200

Post by virgilp » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:12 AM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #114

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…

> 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. Perhaps you need to read about more episodes: > I worked 10 years ago at VA Linux which had Richard Stallman on its board of directors. You might have heard that Stallman applied his open source ideas to his publicly…

Also, Gruber dislikes Stallman for quite a while, and has repeteadly picked on him for various reasons like "lack of hygiene" or weird behaviour. Never, once, until now, for the sexual advances theme.... He just discovered that this was in fact the primary reason why he should've disliked Stallman, not the others.

Given this, I'd expect (A) this is close to the worst concrete evidence that one can find on Stallman's misbehaviours, everywhere; and (B ) it's not exactly unbiased. Sure it sounds bad, but I would like details. Because at the same time, there's also this tale that sounds a lot more objective, verifiable & facts-based https://archive.is/7qepC. E.g :

> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior. The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle in and around the organization was feminized and all the stronger for it.