[deleted]
In Defense of Richard Stallman
361–370 of 681 posts
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#362> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
If someone appears to be having sex with someone that appears to be underage, the older person appears to be sexually assaulting the younger person. This is because a minor cannot legally consent which makes non-consensual sex forceful by definition, hence it is called assault.
In other words: rms was wrong, and now rms is gone.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#363Diversity -- 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…
It doesn't have anything to do with diversity of opinion or lack thereof. If this article is correct, the issue is simply a blatant misrepresentation of what Stallman said.
I admit I haven't been following this news very well so far, so I'm doubtless missing some important facts. I'd heard Stallman was stepping down because of something he said about Minsky, but I have no idea what that was. If this is it, and this article is correct (edit: based on additional info here and elsewhere, it seems Stallman has a long history of questionable behaviour towards women that was also addressed in the initial article, so this new article is omitting quite a bit), then I'm baffled that he has to step down from anything. What he said, that the girl was coerced to appear willing, seems pretty clear to me, and presenting that as him saying that she was actually willing, sounds like a pretty clear and blatant lie to me. Seems worth criticising the organisations that spread that lie.
I'm generally in favour of fighting rape culture and child abuse with all that we've got, and Epstein is clearly pure evil. If Minsky has sex with an underage girl, it doesn't even matter whether she appeared willing or not; that's just wrong. In that sense, Stallman sticking up for his friend was probably not the greatest idea, but if he said she was coerced, and not actually willing, then it's wrong that he should lose his job for saying things he never said.
And yeah, sure, Stallman is a weirdo. Occasionally even a disgusting weirdo maybe (I remember a video where he seemed to pick something from his toes and put it in his mouth), and I recently read a description of events where he publicly embarrassed a woman for being present at a tech related event. (Edit: it seems he has a long history creepiness towards young women, including his students.) If you're gonna fire him, fire him for that, not for something he didn't even say in a private mailing list.
In general, I'm fine with weirdos. We need more of them, not less. Being a weirdo is no excuse to act like an asshole, but on its own it's no reason to ostracise someone.
But this issue? If the description from the article is correct, it seems based on a blatant lie.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#364Diversity -- 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…
Yes, we should fire people who are borderline pro-paedophilia and are actually pro-rape. Also, just read the accounts of women who have had the bad luck of directly working with Stallman. We’re all grownups, at some point we should all be responsible for what we say and what we do.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#365Diversity -- 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…
My impression is that we're experiencing a somewhat less brutal version of Mao's Cultural Revolution. But who knows, possibly "psychological and moral re-education centers" are just over the horizon. They pulled the same crap in China, with excitable young minds as useful idiots serving the hidden political agendas of actors behind the scene. It is informative to seriously review the Cultural Revolution, and the ensu…
You are being downvoted but I agree with you. Of course there is a difference of degree but it is the same mechanics. I come from a country run by authoritarians, and it is the same. Some people seem to think authoritarians admit they are the bad bad guys oppressing the people,but they ALWAYS see themselves as the champions of morality, high values and justice. It is the other group of nasty people who dare to confront their vision who need to be discarded.
It reminds me also of a funny and universal thing I have noticed for example on Reddit. Moderators of subreddits, many of them dedicated to noble causes and ideas and supposedly anti system tend to be extremely autocratic and arbitrary in their decisions, even the worst judge in America would be more level headed.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#366Diversity -- 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-fu…
> 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
No, it's not about socially apt, his ideology is rooted too deeply in freedom to say opinions about sensitive issues and rejecting the norm. There were always going to be a lot of opinions "normies" wouldn't like. So the only way out for him was to fight back, attack the attackers, call the media "fake news" and all that.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#367Earlier 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.
So is musing illegal now or what? Can people still have controversial opinions without getting their lives destroyed?
Stallman wasn't convicted of any crime, so please drop the "illegal" thing. He can have whatever controversial opinions he wants.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you might be a bit emotional. Can you provide some solid proof of Richard Stallman harassing or abusing people as a pattern or any evidence at all?
Re-read this thread, plenty of examples have been given. That you chose not to find these examples yourself speaks to your character.
Please refrain from personal attacks as they are against hacker news terms of use. Secondly, you need to provide specific examples. There's plenty of content in this thread arguing contrary to your position, maybe you should read those, too. I think it's a cop out to simply refer to a thread. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So? Stallman is the last person on earth I'd suspect of opportunistic opinion changing. The whole life of this person revolves around being stubborn in his point of view regardless of what others think about it. I've seen many people suggesting that that last note is a kind of "damage control", but that's probably the least believable accusation when it comes to rms.
Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you link those posts?
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20... https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
Honestly, I don’t see anything wrong in his statements. He was skeptical that it’s always forced and not the arbitrary “minors” choice - okay?
This was over a decade ago (first link), and appear to be musings on the issue. It doesn’t necessarily say (as you claim) - “I support this”