Thank you for that article!! It's a shame what a piss-poor narrow-minded society 'the west' has become...
> narrow-minded society
"don't defend the rape of children" isn't narrow minded.
In Defense of Richard Stallman
271–280 of 681 posts
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#272Earlier 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.…
> There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness.
You are saying that socially awkward people shouldn't be leaders. RMS can't change, he isn't socially awkward by choice. That's his personality.
I disagree. Leaders have flaws, and social awkwardness isn't anywhere near the top of the worst flaws. In fact, in RMS' case, I think it was part of the reason for his success in promoting free software.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#273Our 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…
>The other people in those organization do get to have a say too you know.
True, and when squinting, the scenario is understandable: "High profile employee repeatedly receives negative press, so the organization doesn't want to be associated."
They're free to employ and endorse, or end a relationship, with anyone at will (modulo labor laws). The worrying thing here is, despite decades of bad behavior, they didn't distance themselves until he expressed unpopular opinions picked up by social media.
It's like the saying, "The ends don't justify the means." This smacks of letting social media voices have a say in staff choices. Even if most people agree with the outcome, it's the wrong process.
Edits: removing tangents to focus on the points.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
The point of a leader is that they do/present something that gathers followers. If the followers say "no, that's not ok", they're by definition not a good leader anymore (or not for that group of people - RMS can definitely create an FSF clone with people who accept him). There's lots of leaders who love the status quo and organise people around it. No challenging needed. (for example priests being leaders for a smal…
There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which I can't disagree with more.
This isn't the followers saying "no, that's not ok", this is large institutions saying "no" on behalf of a vocal few.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#275> 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…
> 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…
> He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace
This sword cuts both ways.
MIT is not a kindergarten, they are adult people moving in an adult work context.
It has been said here, that some women are so terrified of Stallman that will carry plants around with they. If true this would speak volumes but not about RMS; about those women!
I assume that there are a lot of very smart but socially awkward people (men and women) in MIT. Excentricity and twisted humour is not a trait exclusive of men. Sex jokes are not exclusive of men. A fully growth women, so terrified of any contact with men to barricade herself behind a geranium all day, should raise a red flag. Maybe somebody in the administration could stop chasing the "big bad men" and kindly try to help this women to improve her social skills instead.
Dealing with sex and relationships is part of being an adult. Any adult women should be able to stop and deal elegantly with an undesired proposition. Men act nervous, clumsy and awkward all the time when try to develop a romantic relationship. This does not convert them in monsters. Is just the human nature.
Just a smile and a "thanks, but not thanks" should be enough, and this is a skill that can be learned also.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#276Diversity -- but no diversity of opinion... Inclusiveness -- but let's ostracize the non-conforming aspie... Fairness -- but let's fire people or make them resign from unrelated positions for their personal opinions, because obviously all of a person's life should serve as a big PR, and god forbid they don't play the role 24/7. Someone might call them for it on Twitter, and what could their employee/organization do o…
No. None of the things you mention is actually the issue.
Diversity: It's not about opinion, but about an authority figure doing things that harm his colleagues. I could have the opinion that you're an idiot and a liar, but if we were working together and I would constantly say that in the workplace where everyone hears, I would probably get fired.
Inclusiveness: It's not about ostracising, either, certainly not because of some mental disability. If someone harms his coworkers and won't stop, they cannot continue working.
Fairness: Again, the problem is not opinions but harmful actions. It certainly isn't about conformity. Harming the people you work with is not some sign of genius conducive to creativity.
I think that too many people are expressing strong opinions on the matter of sexual harassment and sexual assault without having studied the subject at all. Those are opinions based on deep ignorance of the matter.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#277Amid the controversy, I thought this post (indirectly linked from another one below) makes a pretty strong case, with witnesses albeit anonymous ones, that RMS has a history of bad behaviour including sexual harassment:
https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...
It also links to this, from 1983 which does not name RMS but is pretty interesting and damning about the culture of computer science at the time:
https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~lazowska/mit/?source=post_p...
Disclaimer: I'm a man, I'm not a feminist, I dislike cancel culture.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll speak up: I'm happy that Stallman resigned from his positions, but the final straw for me was the surfacing of Stallman's pedophilic musings over the years. You left that part out.
Actually, no, he didn't - he lead with it. > Diversity -- but no diversity of opinion... Is there any sort of evidence of action? Him having had sex with children? If anything, it's you who left out the part where Stallman already said, before this incindent, that he was wrong. I.e. he said it because he actually changed his mind and believes he was wrong, not in order to "save face" or clear his image or avoid scand…
If someone tells me they think that it's sometimes fine to have sex with children, I don't need any evidence of action to want to distance myself from that person.
> If anything, it's you who left out the part where Stallman already said, before this incindent, that he was wrong. I.e. he said it because he actually changed his mind and believes he was wrong, not in order to "save face" or clear his image or avoid scandal or whatnot.
He posted that after the storm had started, three days before his resignation. A few days after the "Remove Richard Stallman" Medium post was written.
Do you think that's a complete coincidence? Has nothing to do with saving face and only his desire to explain that he had changed his mind?
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#279@dang
Can we please stop removing Stallman discussions from the front page?
I understand we want to keep things civil on HN, but the reality is that this dramatically impacts this community and all developers - probably more than we realize on the surface. I Discussing it and essentially letting everyone voice their thoughts is a way to both (a) come to consensus and (b) potentially see view points.
As it stands the “media” has a voice, most developers come to Hacker News.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what could be more normal than an 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island willingly offering free sex to a man in his 70s? How could Minsky possibly have suspected that anything was amiss?
Have you considered the possibility that your definition of normalcy is not equivalent to what's technically possible, or may be even the truth?
I have read over your comment a few times and still have no idea what you mean. But yeah, I'm confident in my judgment of what is and isn't normal in this instance.