In Defense of Richard Stallman • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#531

Post by gfrff » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

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…

That's definitely not the case.

Most people on campus think of RMS as a socially awkward crusader for free software. He has a reputation for pushing himself into positions where he's not wanted (e.g. handing out protest fliers at industry talks where MIT wants to maintain good relations, or responding to otherwise unrelated email threads where someone mentions proprietary software).

He had awkward posters on his door, but I've never heard of RMS hitting on people after they've asked him to stop. There's a big gap between "feel uncomfortable" and what you describe.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#532

Post by Grangar » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #283

gosub wrote: post #20

I hope RMS is safe, and that someone finds a way to let us all help him, in any meaningful way. The most disgusting thing is that whose who witch-hunted him, from their higher moral ground, will face no consequences at all.

> The most disgusting thing is that whose who witch-hunted him, from their higher moral ground, will face no consequences at all. I wouldn't be so sure about that. At the very least, the FSF has lost some annual contributions...

Are they the ones to blame for this all though?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#533

Post by sergioj97 » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

smhost wrote: post #232

rvz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. You have just outlined the double-speak of the SV technocracy, which have imposed these hidden codes on those that they disagree with. Mind you that the media has now amplified this and have used all of this to create a new enemy called Richard Stallman. As long as this appalling cancel-culture behaviour stops, he certainly won't be the last one to fall victim to these purity tests. Absolutely hypocritical i…

from reading just this comment, i would have assumed that stallman was stripped of all his land and titles and made to starve under a bridge. what really happened was that he went from holding leadership positions in three prominent institutions to just one. it's easy to have strong feelings about these issues, but let's try to keep things in perspective.

Keeping things in perspective, do you really believe what is happening now isn't going to ruin Stallman's life?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#534

Post by CPLX » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #471

GarrickDrgn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

you're completely misrepresenting the point. That leaders should ascribe to societal norms is not always a good outcome. If you want to have revolution, revolutionaries needs to be in place of power/leadership. A society needs to have a mechanism to have such revolutions, or stagnate.

I agree.

Except for when those revolutionaries are saying it's pretty much OK for adults to fuck kids.

Then, I'll pass.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#535

Post by FactolSarin » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

tsss wrote: post #468

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…

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.

I mean, if someone was constantly making me feel uncomfortable at my job, and hitting on me even after I'd ask them to stop, I'd tell my boss and would quit if it wasn't dealt with. If enough people complained and/or quit, that person would eventually be let go. That's just life.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#536

Post by CPLX » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

michannne wrote: post #466

GarrickDrgn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's made multiple comments spread over many years that make it clear he disagrees with the core concept of statutory rape, by repeatedly invoking "consent" or "willingness" and similar.

The whole point of the concept is that there's no such thing as willingness or consent with minors, that the very nature of the act having taken place constitutes rape.

A statement like "there is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children" means he's saying adults raping children is OK.

He literally wrote that on his blog. It's still there.[0]

I mean, what do you think is going to happen when you do stuff like that?

He definitely has a legal right to do it, and on that I'd defend him to the death. But he doesn't have a legal right to work at MIT or anywhere else that's not comfortable with a leader who says stuff like this.

[0] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#537

Post by CathedralBorrow » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #530

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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 exp…

> Why do you think you shouldn't write that post? It's just an opinion, right? Au contraire, I think you should write that post if you're of that opinion. And I think it would be beneficial to society to write it too. What I wrote is that you shouldn't write it "and not expect to get fired" -- because that's what will probably happen. If it was to me, that shouldn't happen either. But a company is a private business,…

But surely you can see how that can become absurd.

Extreme example: An employee at your company keeps a blog about how having sex with children is perfectly fine, how black people are all stupid and how jews should be exterminated because Hitler had the right idea. Also that almost all accusations of rape are false because all women are lying bitches. All perfectly legal opinions that don't relate directly to his work.

Is it your position that none of this should have any effect on his position?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#538

Post by uwagan » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #447

FactolSarin wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Have you ever read Stallman's appearance requirements[1]? I mean, yeah, it's probably a joke. But I wouldn't be shocked it it were true either. [1] https://github.com/ddol/rre-rms/blob/master/rider.txt

Yes I have. It is more reasonable than people give it credit for. If most of the people honestly catalogued all their quirks they'd end up with something fairly similar. Usually the courtesy when travelling is to put up with whatever the host provides, but that is less realistic when someone spends a lot of time travelling. How is a host meant to figure any of the details in that rider out ahead of a Stallman visit w…

he should have added a few more lines:

i dont mind children having sex with adults as long as they are willing.

i dont like to be made homeless

:D

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#539

Post by streb-lo » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #487

booleandilemma wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your line of thinking is that it discourages people from expressing their opinions if they deviate from the opinion of the majority. If people need to be concerned about having their lives ruined over what they write in an email, or an online forum, can’t you see what kind of chilling effect this has?

I mean of course words have consequences. Denying it is just absurd. If an employee of yours regularly expresses his opinion that your children are sexy and he'd like to have sex with them, what would you do about it that does not in any way discourage him from expressing his opinion? Surely you can't reprimand him or fire him. Or an employee that regularly talks publicly about how horrible your company is and that n…

Don't even bother. I think most of the people defending Stallman in this thread aren't contributing members of society or are at least clueless in how the world operates.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#540

Post by virgilp » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #363

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…

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…

> based on additional info here and elsewhere, it seems Stallman has a long history of questionable behaviour towards women

Those are also lies, probably. Read all the comments here - or link to an actual instance of "additional info here and elsewhere" and I may be actually able to link you to a denial/ proof that it's fabricated. Eg. the most egregious stuff I've read against him was published by Gruber aka "daringfireball", and were all proven to be shameless lies (and rather obvious and easy to dispel ones, after one learns a bit of history about RMS. Like, that he was never married, wasn't on the board of VA Linux, etc)