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

511–520 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#511

Post by sergioj97 »

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…

At this point of the conversation, your rejectal to accept that "Paedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" effectively means "Paedophilia isn't always wrong" or "Paedophilia is sometimes fine/ok" (understanding that what could be wrong about Paedophilia is precisely the possible harmful effects for the children involved) is starting to look malicious.

Just to be clear, I agree with everything that's being said in this article. I can't understand how some people read Stallman's words and understand the exact opposite of what he is saying. But I find equally incomprehensible how can you read that quote and still need an explanation on how one thing implies the other.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#512

Post by computerex »

interpenetrate wrote: post #203
computerex wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He worked in MIT for over 30 years, do share any evidence at all of the pattern you are referring to.

>He worked in MIT for over 30 years walter lewin was at mit for 43 years before he was exposed and fired for sexual abuse.

He sent inappropriate messages in an online course, there are no accusations against him, proven or unproven regarding his career at MIT. And what point are you trying to make with your statement? Lewin supposedly asked a student to do sexual role playing with him and asked for inappropriate videos. Richard Stallman hasn't done anything of the sort and if you disagree provide proof.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#513

Post by CrackerNews »

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…

This is positive freedom liberals vs negative freedom liberals. The positive freedom liberals believe in creating an equal playing field for all types of people at the cost of individual freedom. The negative freedom liberals believe in maximizing individual freedom at the cost of an equal playing field.

For the positive freedom liberals, diversity of minorities must be enforced and any opinion that may hinder them must be silenced. However, this is taken to a logical extreme.

Every identity must be inclusive and forced to be inclusive and accomodating even if they may be a minority themself.

In the logical extreme, fairness under the legal court is thrown out because the legal court is viewed as corrupt from being staffed with corrupt figures favoring the majority identity.

Extrajudicial means are employed to force minority identities upward because they don't believe that the negative freedom of the free market can allow for that.

Eccentricity is still allowed, however it is a different kind than the one of computer nerds like Richard Stallman. Non-conforming gender identities or images of body beauty are a-okay but not awkward men. The acceptance of the awkward men were a triumph for the awkward men against the neurotypical men, but now they have become seen as the enemy against other minorities because now their cringe-inducing awkwardness is seen as a barrier to entry that drives off neurotypical minorities.

This is all really musical chairs operating under an inherently unjust system and instead of challenging that system, they only challenge the "bad" actors and hope that somehow the system will become more friendly for everyone.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#515

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#516

Post by coldtea »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #479
cambalache wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can mean for example, that having CP on your PC although highly immoral, should not be punished by law,reserving that fate for distributors and especially creators. This is an arbitrary distinction by law and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it. A similar argument is already in practice in many places where illegal drugs possession is not punished (u…

> and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it. I think this is the crux of the difference here. I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever. That's an absurd proposition to me. Maybe that's why I seem to be talking past people about this.

>I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever.

Which is irrelevant, as the parent didn't say that "expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever".

He just said that having that particular opinion should not have any consequences.

That said,

>That's an absurd proposition to me.

What exactly is absurd about free speech and no consequences for expressing whatever opinion (even "Hitler's ideas were good") -- except when opinion becomes action?

Obviously nobody includes "people shouldn't dislike you for your opinions", or "your readership should not change for your opinions" when they say about no consequences.

They mean: not getting thrown to jail, not loosing your job, especially if it's totally unrelated with your opinions, not being ex-communicated, etc...

And if friends and family could also get sticks out of their asses, and e.g. be OK with you having a different opinion (e.g. being atheist or a Democrat or a Republican or whatever), and just judge you on what you actually do, that would be great too...

(of course you shouldn't write a post about how "X company is crap" if you work for X and not expect to get fired")

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#517

Post by AsyncAwait »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #496
AsyncAwait wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Not really considering the OP post talks about it, but for more context:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113768

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#519

Post by synthmeat »

coldtea wrote: post #491
FactolSarin wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

Beyond this, there's also a question of who are you really selecting for when you, by negation, prefer people who'll consciously weigh their every interaction with other humans, being keenly aware of hierarchy of relations at the same time, and careful that any deviation from that would be undocumented? Who would be interested in making social structure adhere to these types of personalities? Who would throw anger tantrums if denied all this, and be willing to bring hellfire on others based on, effectively, nothing?

I'm not completely sure about the answer, but that description sits well on a spectrum of anti-social and is the only lens through which all this makes sense to me.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#520

Post by CathedralBorrow »

coldtea wrote: post #516
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it. I think this is the crux of the difference here. I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever. That's an absurd proposition to me. Maybe that's why I seem to be talking past people about this.

> I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever. Which is irrelevant, as the parent didn't say that "expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever". He just said that having that particular opinion should not have any consequences. That said, > That's an absurd proposition to me. What exactly is absurd about free speech and no consequences for expressing what…

> (of course you shouldn't write a post about how "X company is crap" if you work for X and not expect to get fired")

I'll use this as my example for why I think it's absurd. Why do you think you shouldn't write that post? It's just an opinion, right?

If I understand you correctly then you're saying that there are some opinions that you could expect to be fired for expressing, even if they are completely legal to express. I agree with that.

Our definitions of what you can expect to have consequences however seems very different. And that's fine.

Post reply on HN