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

491–500 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#491

Post by coldtea »

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…

>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 had friends meet Stallman in some conference, and they told me he could make everybody (not just women) "feel uncomfortable around him" in some ways (but nothing an adult shouldn't be able to handle).

Now, if this is about attacking women (physically, or sexually, etc) that would be something else, and would need to be addressed on its own, not using his Epstein comments, and distorting them at that.

Even so, "Not taking "no" for an answer" seems to imply something close to rape or sexual assault -- wheres "making uncomfortable" seems to imply some inconvenience at most.

If he took his willy out, or touched some woman's privates, it shouldn't be called merely "making uncomfortable".

"Making Uncomfortable", at least to my understanding, falls more on the "whistles the Popeye theme incessantly", "smells", "shouts Eureka when he has an idea", "swears a lot", "is totally blunt about weight gains", "looks you dead in the eyes for minutes" etc, realm -- not fire-able offenses outside of a customer facing / corporate environment.

>"RMS, that creepy guy who keeps hitting on people even after they ask him to stop."

Like, asking some person out or something? There's a line there in how we went about it. Many a relationships and happy marriages have started from a person who insisted (even if they were told to stop or "it will never happen between us") - and that's for both men hitting on women, women hitting on men, gays hitting on gays, and lesbians hitting on lesbians. Humans are complicated that way. Some cases persisted for months of years, but eventually the other side agreed and they lived happily ever after (I know several cases).

Of course if he was a jerk about it that's different. There's a line between "asked me out several times even though I said no every time", and "he raised his voice/threatened/followed me out/etc".

(Note that myself can't help (mild aspie) but overanalyze the situation logically, YMMV. Probably you could already tell from the balanced parentheses in prose).

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#492

Post by foldr »

chii wrote: post #455
foldr wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot, charming people get away with things that ugly awkward people don't. However, the lesson to be drawn from this isn't that it's ok to do those things. Rather, it's that life is unfair.

> the lesson to be drawn from this isn't that it's ok to do those things if it's OK for the charming, suave guy to do it, then the issue exists at the "victim", not the "perpetrator". Rule of law is meant to make life more fair, and this isn't a lesson, but it is something for society to improve on.

>if it's OK for the charming, suave guy to do it,

I was saying that it isn't ok for the charming, suave guy to do it either.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#494

Post by rndgermandude »

tomclive wrote: post #482
rndgermandude wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He built a global movement challenging people publically Exactly, is it hard to imagine he doesn't want to take a blow torch to his own creation just as a last "fuck you" farewell? >happy to semi-publically state his opinions about sexual assault He said sexual assault is bad. How dare he?!

He rejects the term 'Sexual Assault' completely. https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assult There's plenty of troubling stuff in his writing.

Yes, he rejects the specific term as too non-specific, not that there is sexual violence at all.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#495

Post by CathedralBorrow »

Kbelicius wrote: post #481
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No actually I think I can make it clearer. Here's Stallman himself summarizing his own words That is not making it clearer. First, I was interested in how you interpreted the quote you used as you did. This doesn't make it clearer. Secondly, I don't know if the quote you are using now is referencing the firs quote or something else. I suspect that you do not either. Also it seems that you have some axe to grind aga…

Ok let's just clear this up once and for all because we're in some deep thread spiral here.

Here's where it all started:

> Me: "No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine"

> You: "Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all."

Here is a statement from 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."

So he said himself that what he was saying back then was that in some instances there is nothing wrong with sex between an adult and a child.

This is my answer to your original question. He explained it himself.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#496

Post by CathedralBorrow »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #488
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, thanks. I'll also add some more context: These current thoughts on pedophilia were posted two days after the "Remove Richard Stallman" Medium post went up.

Are you talking about the post that intentionally misquoted him?

I would appreciate if you presented your arguments up front instead of sneaking them inside a loaded question. This is as impossible to answer as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#497

Post by coldtea »

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.

Well, never mind Stallman, didn't the law used to agree on that? Wasn't e.g. Jerry Lee Lewis, an adult, allowed to legally marry his 13-year old cousin (as well as countless other people)?

I find it bad myself (I'd say: have sex after 16 and generally with people closer to their age progressively -- e.g. a 16 yo should be able to sleep with a 18 year old, but not sure with a 25 or 40 year old, it would be more manipulative. After adult age, at 18 of course, anything should go), but from what I read:

"As of May 2019, in all but two states, a minor can marry with parental consent or with judicial authorisation, with the minimum marriage age, when all exemptions are taken into account, being as low as 14, and potentially lower."

So, if judges are OK with this, how can Stallman lose their job, not because he did it, but because he merely theorized about people doing it?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#498

Post by CrackerNews »

sipos wrote: post #483
imgabe wrote: post #240

Sadly, a large number of people seem to have decided that their feelings are more important than the truth. That if something makes you feel bad, this means it is bad and must be destroyed. This is like how a dark basement might be scary to a child. A normal adult would explain that the basement is actually harmless, and teach the child to see it for what it really is and learn not be afraid of it. The feelings-first…

IMHO, the modern left has become very harsh in condemning people, showing very little compassion, and engaging in witch-hunts. I think t his is extremely unhelpful. I think this has arisen out of a feeling of righteousness as a result of having been morally right on many things in the past several decades, but it is just indulging the same human tenancy to hate others that perceived as not being part of one's tribe a…

[flagged]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#499

Post by CathedralBorrow »

virgilp wrote: post #474
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Is it surprising to you that words can have consequences up to and including your employers no longer wanting to employ you?

How about "looks". Is it surprising to you that physical aspect can have consequences up to and including your employers no longer wanting to employ you? Because what you said is such a broad generalization, that it feels "obviously true". But if you object to a person not being hired because she's black (although that's personally reasonable in some very limited circumstances) - then maybe you should object too for…

If you ran a company, would you make sure that none of your employees ever face consequences for expressing their opinions outside of work?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#500

Post by bjoli »

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?

You are trying to quote an old note of his. People don't realise that and think you are quoting the leaked email.

Quoting ars (can't be bothered to find the note), he wrote: "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17".

He had similar writings about statutory rape from the same time iirc. I don't think the quote above is entirely disagreeable, especially considering the weird court cases that has arisen from that legislation.

Post reply on HN