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

301–310 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#301

Post by hizanberg »

coldtea wrote: post #76

Diversity -- 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…

There's also a perverse incentive in this age of outrage to incite public lynching and write posts to spark maximum hate where you're rewarded with reach, followers and self-reinforcing Internet points on social media and more clicks on link bait articles of which it appears to be all upside, there doesn't appear to be any downside for mischaracterizing or falsely accusing someone on social media, with enough hate-fueled reach any disinformation will eventually drown out uninteresting contradictory facts and be adopted as truth.

None of the hit piece articles I've read portrayed a true characterization of what he wrote, most presented quotes out of context and instead focused their efforts on colorful commentary to suggest he was somehow in support of child rape - an accusation that's clear to invoke the ire of the masses.

If he were more socially apt maybe he would've known to never share his opinion of what he assumed the thoughts of his late friend were, not even on a private mailing list, unless of course it's to join the chorus of hate and accusations against him.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#302

Post by pron »

wozniacki wrote: post #261
coldtea wrote: post #76

Diversity -- 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…

I agree with everything you said. I just hope that we applied the same rationale in an even-keeled and level-headed manner in other cases where similar concerns are raised. I hope we don't make exceptions for our favorite pet causes no matter how close to the heart and rule against those who were found to have either voiced opinions or acted in an antagonistic manner to such causes, even when those decisions are thor…

> in an even-keeled and level-headed manner in other cases where similar concerns are raised.

It's so nice and heartwarming that you're complimenting his even-keeled and level-headed manner on a subject both of you know as much as a first-grader knows quantum mechanics. It's the blind leading the blind and complimenting each other for their clear-sightedness.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#303

Post by meerita »

op00to wrote: post #269
meerita wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am not. But what proof do you have Minsky had sex with a minor? I didn't see it. I think Stallman didn't see it.

Who needs proof about Minsky? RMS said he thinks the children couldn’t be sexually assaulted because they wanted it. You’re defending this creep? Do you agree that it’s not kiddie rape if the kids don’t complain?

> Who needs proof…

You need proof to accuse someone of a crime. He didn't mention "a child". He said, quotes: "We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.".

He never mentions his old friend had sex with minors. He only points out is not clear the only scenario was a) a minor, b) using force.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#304

Post by miracle2k »

op00to wrote: post #269
meerita wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am not. But what proof do you have Minsky had sex with a minor? I didn't see it. I think Stallman didn't see it.

Who needs proof about Minsky? RMS said he thinks the children couldn’t be sexually assaulted because they wanted it. You’re defending this creep? Do you agree that it’s not kiddie rape if the kids don’t complain?

He did not say that.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#305

Post by sannee »

roenxi wrote: post #227
sannee wrote: post #42

> There are two possibilities here. Either the author of the Medium post was not capable of correctly parsing the sentence, or she didn’t care about truth and was leveling as many accusations as possible in the hope that one would stick. Either I am vastly overestimating the quality of american top university education, or the first option is highly unlikely. So, who benefits from Stallman getting removed from the pi…

The core of the drama is a MIT visiting professor has a poor grasp of social context and an inability to synchronise with other people. It seems totally possible that some graduate mechanical engineer totally misread a text. Mechanical engineers aren't known for being social butterflys.

Being capable to extract precise logical meaning from text is something everyone with STEM education learns in their introductory mathematics courses. It has nothing to do with social ability.

> visiting professor has a poor grasp of social context and an inability to synchronise with other people.

I am not that interested about the broader political context. I would like to know who (and why) shot Franz Ferdinand so to speak.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#306

Post by rndgermandude »

viraptor wrote: post #290
rndgermandude wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be a third option between "tolerate everything" and "completely oust him from public life as violently as you can".

Why do you think the second case happened? He resigned from a prestigious position on his own terms. If I expected anyone to tell straight "I've been forced to resign" or "I've been fired due to politics", it would be RMS. He didn't, and nobody seems to be preventing him to take part in public life - as evidenced by the number of posts, there's a number of people who still want to work with him.

He was witch-hunted on the internet by a serial witch-hunter, some "journalists" who lack basic reading comprehension and the lynch mob that ensured. It's naive to believe he resigned voluntarily. He was pressured into it, probably believed the witch-hunters, lynchmobgoers and finger pointers to a certain degree that he indeed is evil, resigned to protect what he created and therefore was nice enough to not shit all over the institutions he created on his way out.

His reputation was set on fire and burned to the ground, he was expelled from his life's work, might even have become homeless as a direct result, and most of the people he considered friends or friendly vanished over night (tho, some remain as you pointed out, but decidedly few) destroying most of his social (support) network.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#307

Post by CathedralBorrow »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #281
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #202

Earlier 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.

What you call "pedophilic musings", I call natural thinking process that probably every critical thinker went through in their life. It even reaches standard socially-acceptable conclusion - it just took him way longer than usual (which frankly is hardly surprising).

Yeah, took him until a few days after the whole storm had started. Good timing to have such a profound reversal in your view on pedophilia.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#308

Post by EdwardDiego »

sascha_sl wrote: post #19
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.

before someone goes into a defensive rage... rms being a creep and particularly women at MIT going to great lengths to avoid him is well documented these remarks, while slightly distorted by the media, are still part of a pattern of dismissing sexual assault (including the way RMS insists on not using the word assault despite it being well understood that assault does not have to be physical violence) rms is the sort…

> before someone goes into a defensive rage... rms being a creep and particularly women at MIT going to great lengths to avoid him is well documented

I can't believe this hasn't been asked yet - if the allegations are founded, why didn't MIT do anything as his employer? They have a statutory obligation to provide a safe workplace.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#309

Post by smhost »

lettergram wrote: post #299
smhost wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from reading just this comment, i would have assumed that stallman was stripped of all his land and titles and made to starve under a bridge. what really happened was that he went from holding leadership positions in three prominent institutions to just one. it's easy to have strong feelings about these issues, but let's try to keep things in perspective.

He pretty much was / is. He lived at MIT, his life’s work was GNU and the FSF. All three were taken away, and more than that - people were excited and driven to do this. He’s had to move, he’s lost all his potions, etc. There was very little discourse and punishment was swift. That’s not really the way justice should be served. This man (RMS), essentially spent his life fighting for others. He was thrown to the wolve…

stallman is still the head of the GNU project.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#310

Post by DanBC »

bloak wrote: post #90
DanBC wrote: post #8

> blatantly lie about what was said, I've seen this said a few times, and it needs to be cleared up. Stallman defended Minsky by saying it wasn't rape and it was assault. To mount this defence Stallman had to ignore common English definitions for both words, and he had to ignore the legal definitions of both words. People are angry at Stallman for what he actually said, not what you think they think he said. If you w…

You're not clearing things up; you are contributing to the misinformation. Your unsubstantiated claim that "Stallman defended Minsky" really doesn't help, unless, perhaps, it helps train people to ignore what they read on the Internet about such matters. Here's what a proper newspaper wrote on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/17/mit-scient...

The first fucking line of your "proper newspaper" article

> after leaked emails appeared to show him downplaying another academic’s alleged participation in the purported sex trafficking of minors by Jeffrey Epstein.

Post reply on HN