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

461–470 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#461

Post by CathedralBorrow »

EmeraldMoon wrote: post #392
rimliu wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Peop…

"[Possession of child pornography] should be legal as long as no one is coerced."

What do you think he really meant when he stated this?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#462

Post by twelvechairs »

viraptor wrote: post #453
twelvechairs wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 logi…

You've made multiple assumptions about my opinions that I disagree with, and honestly it's too much work to unwind. I'd rather leave now.

I'm trying here, but you just seem to do all you can to avoid debate and confuse discussion

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#463

Post by CathedralBorrow »

computerex wrote: post #368
DanBC wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do the terms of use say anything about discounting other people's words as emotional?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#464

Post by roenxi »

FactolSarin wrote: post #434
TeMPOraL wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one agree 100% with you here. And I don't really know what angers me more - the explicit desire to destroy a person's life, expressed by many including the original blogger that started this mess, or the relentless denial of reality, the willingness to repeat bald-faced lies, even though the source material was accessible and widely quoted. Until this debacle I didn't realize so many people in our industry can…

I agree that based on this single email alone, it would be shocking for someone to be forced out. On the other hand, apparently RMS has had a long history of making women feel uncomfortable around him, and not taking "no" for an answer. I feel like this is probably something that's been building for a time, and this letter might have just been the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't that bad in and of itself…

> and not taking "no" for an answer.

Citation needed for everything after the "apparently"; but in particular - even the gossip I've read suggests he took No as an answer just fine.

The stories on HN over the last week have generally been him asking women out in a bizarre way and then accepting a quite predictable "no". And even then most of the stories are poorly sourced.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#465

Post by chii »

vezycash wrote: post #205
dpq wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> claiming they were actually willing Did you even bother to read the emails or at the very least the article? This misconception is exactly what's being argued there, that Stallman said something clearly different. > Ignoring a legal age of consent By doing what, raping someone underage? Or rather expressing his opinion that it's ridiculous that when in one state the age of consent is 16, in another one it's 18, and…

Once people have decided, or taken a position, facts and evidence are virtually useless. I read here on HN a few days ago that the dude in question, TURNED THE GIRL DOWN. How people are crucifying two people (Stallman and the dead guy) for underage rape that never happened is just crazy.

it's SJW and cancel culture, with people who pile on as a virtue signalling that is causing this.

See how badly critics blasted dave chappel for his new show, despite the audience loving the jokes (even if they were edgy, they were done in good taste, and pin-pointed a problem that society at large refuses to comment or talk about).

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#466

Post by michannne »

GarrickDrgn wrote: post #147
lagadu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, we are saying that only people who subscribe to the "don't rape children" flavour of groupthink should be respected in public discourse.

Gaslighting. Stallman never advocated for raping minors.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#467

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#468

Post by tsss »

FactolSarin wrote: post #434
TeMPOraL wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one agree 100% with you here. And I don't really know what angers me more - the explicit desire to destroy a person's life, expressed by many including the original blogger that started this mess, or the relentless denial of reality, the willingness to repeat bald-faced lies, even though the source material was accessible and widely quoted. Until this debacle I didn't realize so many people in our industry can…

I agree that based on this single email alone, it would be shocking for someone to be forced out. On the other hand, apparently RMS has had a long history of making women feel uncomfortable around him, and not taking "no" for an answer. I feel like this is probably something that's been building for a time, and this letter might have just been the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't that bad in and of itself…

If you set "making someone uncomfortable" as the bar for ousting people or even criminal charges, it's clear that this can only lead to trouble. There's a reason that the law against insults considers only the impression of a third party. The "victim" feeling insulted is not enough.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#469

Post by virgilp »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #278
virgilp wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sca…

> Do you think that's a complete coincidence?

You are right - I was under the impression that was posted earlier, but he posted that immediately after the email thread was "leaked" to Vice. It's no coincidence; I still think that, given his previous as well as ulterior behavior, as well as the timing, that it's a clarification he felt he needed to make (given the public accusations that started pouring). I.e. it still doesn't look to me like a dishonest attempt to save face by hiding his controversial opinions... he reacted too quick with that, while ignoring everything else.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#470

Post by [deleted] »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #437
Kbelicius wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children No, he is not saying that. In that quote that you used he isn't even saying that pedophilia isn't harmful when it is consensual. I'm really interested how you reached that conclusion while reading the same text I'm reading. > Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children As far as I can see those are your words and not his. Where does he say tha…

Edit: No actually I think I can make it clearer. Here's Stallman himself summarizing his own words: > Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. In those words he was saying that in some cases there is nothing wrong with an adult having sex with a child. So I guess what's left is whether "fine" and "nothing wrong with" are equivalent.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN