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

541–550 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#541

Post by notus »

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…

Counter points:

Diversity - I'm fine with a lack of diversity of opinions on whether or not minors can be willing participants in pedophile relationships.

Inclusiveness - Really? Nobody ostracized him because he is an aspie. It is disingenuous to even say that.

Fairness - Nobody fired him, he resigned and let's be honest, the backlash he received was fairly minor. Yes old statements were dug up, but most people are not okay with the statements he made then, they just didn't know about them.

> holier-than-thou hypocritical tell-tales and people who enjoy yielding power over others by drawing lynch-mobs

Who does this label apply to? Anyone who gets upset at a public figure's viewpoints? Where are you personally drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable.

This isn't just about Epstein. Epstein is what brought Stallman's views to the spotlight, but the focus is primarily on former stances on pedophilia he made that are far more damaging things to say than whatever people were saying he said about Epstein or the girls involved with him. Stallman doesn't seem to believe that people can be groomed into appearing like they want to do something when they really don't or aren't aware of the consequences of it.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#542

Post by uwagan »

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...

i loved the line when she is returning home in her car, she isnt listening to songs or podcast but sitting in complete silence.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#543

Post by nql »

fergie wrote: post #165

> You don’t get the free software movement without a person like Richard Stallman. Its success depended on a stubborn pedantic ideologue. It required someone who couldn’t take a hint. This is really the crux of the matter. Richard Stallman should absolutely be held accountable for the stupid things that he has said. The problem is that humanity _really_ needs people like Richard Stallman- very few others have made su…

I agree. Some of the posters say that software would have been better if the people he made uncomfortable weren't made uncomfortable by him and thus continued making software. That is extremely implausible. People who do software because it is something they are passionate about would not be so fragile, and that is necessary to make ground breaking changes.

I sometimes hear people say "if tech wasn't stereotyped as a bunch of nerds, there would be more women in it". This ignores the fact that there is a strong causal relationship between being perceived as a nerd and having a serious interested in software. It's like saying "if I didn't hold people who do software in contempt, then I might have done software!".

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#544

Post by sergioj97 »

paganel wrote: post #364
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…

Yes, we should fire people who are borderline pro-paedophilia and are actually pro-rape. Also, just read the accounts of women who have had the bad luck of directly working with Stallman. We’re all grownups, at some point we should all be responsible for what we say and what we do.

Stallman isn't pro-paedophilia. He stated years ago that he didn't see enough evidence to believe sexual relations with children are harmful for them if they are consensual. That's _not_ believing sexual relations with children can be ok if they are consensual, that's believing you don't have enough evidence to believe the opposite.

And why are you arguing he is pro-rape?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#545

Post by andrewgioia »

DanBC wrote: post #255
gunibert wrote: post #51

As an observer from the outside i have to say, that i am as an "privileged white male" will pay much attention to what i will say in the future. This is my conclusion about what happened here and happened to Linus. The feeling that you have to be super sensitive will close more doors then before - prove me wrong.

> will pay much attention to what i will say in the future. At what point in your working life have you ever wanted to say "child sexual abuse is okay"? Is this really something you feel that you want to say but now can't?

Holy strawman, batman! This is so bad I felt inclined to comment.

Neither OP nor RMS said "child sexual abuse is okay" or wants to say that--you know that, right? Why are you phrasing it that way?

The only rational interpretation is that you're deliberately misrepresenting things, which is ironically one of the main thrusts of the linked article. The language used here is important, as are forums like this one.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#546

Post by scruple »

arkh wrote: post #216
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.

> Nice thought policing there. I'd call it gatekeeping. I hear woke people are against this kind of behavior.

It's important to remember that woke people are not a monolith.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#547

Post by conception »

klingonopera wrote: post #420
Traster wrote: post #23

There's quite a lot in this. I don't think it's helpful to throw in stuff like "He is now likely homeless" - gossip/rumour I'm sure this author would be decrying if the other side of the argument had brought it up. We don't know anything about RMS's personal life and shouldn't speculate. Now let's address the underlying point: You don't get X good thing without Y bad behaviour. I don't agree with this. It's a weird s…

> If someone has a lot to contribute but it never happens because their attitude sucks, that's on them. It's not on us to enable them. It's not on you, maybe, but I'd be willing to put up with somebody's shit if they get the job done. And especially then if no one else has gotten it done so far. Einstein bonked his cousin. And postulated the Theories of Relativity. Yeah, you'd think he could've thought of a better na…

And someone who’s great but an ass/racist/sexist could push out, deter, and marginalize geniuses. We do not have a deficit of people able to do wonderful things. We do not have to tolerate terrible people to get results.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#548

Post by scrollaway »

ianleeclark wrote: post #411
new2628 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're in a professional environment, they shouldn't have to deal with this. Tell that to all the millions of people who are happily married to people they met in professional environments.

> Tell that to all the millions of people who are happily married to people they met in professional environments. Ahh, cool, so we can keep harassing women insofar as there are sometimes positive benefits.

Some work environments are more amenable than others to developing relationships. Do realize that many people in this thread probably only exist because their parents met in a work setting. Your own grandparents may have.

For many people, the workplace is where they spend the largest chunk of their life and thus the primary method of socializing and developing relationships.

There are workplaces where this is inappropriate. There are situations, such as imbalances of power, making this inappropriate. But it is far less appropriate, edging on trolling, for you to categorize every single work relationship as "women being harassed in the workplace".

Do know it is possible to develop a romantic relationship without harassing the other person. If you're not acquainted with the method, for the sake of your potential partners, please familiarize yourself.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#550

Post by Insanity »

reitanqild wrote: post #270
Insanity wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To Linus Torvalds? Wasn't he just temporarily absent for one release due to being 'abusive on pull requests'? Because AFAIK he did not get as much backlash as RMS is getting at the moment, nor did he lose any position somewhere.

IIRC rumor I've seen has it he's extremely careful in things like never being alone with certain people etc.

Didn't hear those rumors before. But, even if that's a rumor that's been going around, it's just a rumor :P
Post reply on HN