In Defense of Richard Stallman • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#391

Post by Igelau » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:09 PM UTC

stochastic_monk wrote: post #96

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…

His creepy, shirtless "get on my mattress" calls to female undergrads at MIT register as more than being awkward or autistic. That alone should be unacceptable behavior for faculty.

Can you link a source that actually spells it out that he did this, or did you just fabricate the story?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#392

Post by EmeraldMoon » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:09 PM UTC

rimliu wrote: post #377

CogitoCogito wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 no…

You can start here: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

This article is complete garbage. I couldn't even read it in its entirety.

> If there are a large number of people in the United States who think that child pornography and sexual intercourse with minors should be legalized, this is the first I’m hearing of it

He never even said that!

This is just another SJW warrior pissed off about the fact that the reality differs from the fiction she has created for herself. People disagree, people are rude, and you WILL be offended sometimes, in the real world. And learning to deal with it is part of being an adult.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#393

Post by loktarogar » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:09 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #380

claudeganon wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure if this is just more grandstanding of the “SJWs run amok” variety, but in case you’re unaware, his recent comments were just the tip of the iceberg: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi... Someone else downthread also linked about how a woman he worked with on a Linux project had to be warned of his arrival ahead of time so she could leave because of his aggressive advances toward…

Something like 50% of that article isn't Stallman related, and some of the choice quotes are a bit unbelievable. Eg: > I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” That sounds like a joke. I mean, it is a joke. That isn't a serious comment/strategy on harassment. No creep has ever been forestalled by someone claiming to be a vi user. 1 stupid opin…

It's in the sphere of believability when it comes to Stallman. He's a pretty eccentric bloke.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#394

Post by phaus » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:09 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #329

phaus wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He’s autistic. He probably gives almost everyone he comes into contact with the creeps. Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible. This is an incredibly ignorant opinion. Lots of high functioning autistic people develop reasonable social skills. People still probably notice if they hang around with us long enough, but non-shitty people (aka apparen…

My social skills are just fine thanks. I’m still not under the illusion allistic people like autistic people, or accept them except under the condition that they hide who and what they are. I don’t think autistic people are creepy perverts. I think that normal people pretty much automatically think they’re creepy because there’s something off about the way they interact socially. The degree of offness varies but if y…

You keep going to extremes. I'm not saying everyone treats autistic people perfectly, I'm just not agreeing that most people are so repulsed that they feel physically unsafe around us and treat us like creeps. The act of socializing itself is exhausting to me, but I don't necessarily feel like I have to hide everything about myself, its more like I have to pay attention to how I respond to people because I might say something that's legitimately rude because my instincts about what might hurt a person's feelings are out of touch with most people.

I don't know that there's a better way for society to accept us than for us to do our best to learn normal social behavior and for them to be understanding when they see that we're trying, even if we fail. Surely you don't expect normal people to just get constantly insulted forever to spare the feelings of a tiny percentage of the population.

And obviously due to variance, bad luck, ignorant local populations/culture, etc, some autistic people will inevitably have a worse experience with people than mine.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#395

Post by rimliu » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #128

equalunique wrote: post #56

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. Can you please cite your sources for this claim?

He’s autistic. He probably gives almost everyone he comes into contact with the creeps. Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible. I doubt Stallman was any more unpleasant to women than to men, or showed any greater or lesser social graces. He has never, ever held back about any of his opinions or actions. I’m sure you could get him to admit to thin…

I'd just awoid stinky people no mater their neural status.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#396

Post by prepend » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

stochastic_monk wrote: post #75

prepend wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a pattern of behaviour over years combined This is a tough rhetorical device. I’ve read quite a bit about this recently. I am not a huge RMS reader and while I’ve known of him for 25 years or so, I haven’t nearly read everything he said and everything written by people who met him. So maybe he does have a pattern of behavior that’s negative enough to be fired. But maybe he doesn’t have a pattern but some peopl…

Jury of peers is for criminal prosecution, not job performance assessment, which is closer to civil cases, in which preponderance of the evidence is the standard.

There’s a judge and sometimes jury in civil cases. There’s still evidence rules. My comment stands with preponderance of evidence standard.

I feel like if all this was handed to a judge or jury it wouldn’t meet the standard for civil verdicts either.

It’s only when I see this stuff presented in the tumbler verse world of most uptweets is true or whatever that it seems to stick.

It’s certainly currently effective, but I don’t know how sustainable it is because it seems like a poor way to produce quality things.

Perhaps there will be a critical mass of people who just adhere to a rational ideal and break the boycotts to the extent where we can have a parallel world that ignores such style of medium-post fueled discussion.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#397

Post by CPLX » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

vharuck wrote: post #273

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…

>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 dis…

> True, and when squinting, the scenario is understandable:

> “High profile employee repeatedly receives negative press [ABOUT HIM BEING OK WITH STATUTORY RAPE AND PEDOPHILIA] so the organization doesn't want to be associated."

Yeah that’s pretty much it.

Yet here we all are, with so many people pretending not to understand it.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#398

Post by sannee » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #352

sannee wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is unlikely that anyone was acting in bad faith here. Unless there is compelling evidence it is safest to assume that people were hasty and didn't stop to think and try to exercise a little tolerance and reflection.

I think it is safe to assume that the author is super good at reading comprehension. The SAT [1] scores of MIT students seem to be in the top 5% of population [2].

[1] https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/MIT-SAT-scores-GP... [2] https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-percentiles-and-score-ranki...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#399

Post by blackhaz » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

rimliu wrote: post #375

mcv wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

And how do you feel about weirdos who treaten to kill themselves if a girl won't go out with them?

I'm fine with that. There are weird girls who threaten to kill themselves too if someone is not going out with them. We are living in a weird world. Deal with it.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#400

Post by twelvechairs » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #318

twelvechairs wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mu. You asked if leader is defined by challenging things. I gave an alternative definition with an example of leaders not challenging things. (and sure, there are also those who do challenge) No-platforming is a completely different topic, and I have expressed no opinions about it.

You haven't responded to my point here, this is just playing semantics and making me guess your definitions.

Despite how you are dancing around responses, from where I see it: You are clearly denying him a platform by saying he shouldnt be a 'leader' (ie. keep his posts). You are making that decision by institutions instead of individuals. You are holding all the worlds 'leaders' to your own moral views which is logically inconsistent.