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

551–560 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#551

Post by sergioj97 »

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.

Reading your link, I don't find anything troubling. He says the term is too ambiguous and it makes it easy to (potentially maliciously) misrepresent someone's acts.

If you find anything else he's said troubling please provide me some references as I'm trying to read anything that may help me to understand this episode. (I've already read about his former and present opinions on paedophilia)

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#552

Post by latchkey »

enriquto wrote: post #138
latchkey wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free != Open Here is a good explanation of the difference... https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/Free-vs-Ope...

The BSD are certainly Free Software today, for they clearly respect the four freedoms. They did not exist, though, at the beginning of the GNU project.

ModifiedBSD, yes.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#553

Post by klingonopera »

conception wrote: post #547
klingonopera wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You know what, I agree with you on that (at least concerning racism/sexism). But when it comes to "ass(holes)" and other "terrible people", as we can see from the whole RMS debacle, most people are unreliable and incapable of correctly identifying those terrible people.

I should've been more precise in this: Seemingly terrible people deserve an accurate evaluation that does not rely on "feelings" or the lynch-mob.

Definitions of an "ass(hole)" are pretty subjective, and the tolerances here vary far greater than those that are racist or sexist. You shouldn't mix them up.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#555

Post by sergioj97 »

viraptor wrote: post #318
twelvechairs wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which I can't disagree with more. This isn't the followers saying "no, that's not ok", this is large institutions saying "no" on behalf of a vocal few.

Mu. You asked if leader is defined by challenging things. I gave an alternative definition with an example of leaders not challenging things. (and sure, there are also those who do challenge) No-platforming is a completely different topic, and I have expressed no opinions about it.

You didn't just give an example of a leader who doesn't challenge things. You literally stated that if a follower disagrees with the leader, then "by definition" he/she is not a good leader. You are implying that the definition of "leader" includes that you can't challenge things people may not find ok (disagree with).

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#556

Post by foldr »

makomk wrote: post #423
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly a link you've made. Any thoughts on the first quote? The one where he writes "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children". Do you think he's just factually summarizing some news article there as well?

Presumably that was his actual views back then. People have relied heavily on that second quote to prove that he still holds those views though.

If he hasn't very publicly retracted that view and apologized (and: he hasn't), then he shouldn't be surprised that people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he talks about sex crimes.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#557

Post by doubleunplussed »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #499
virgilp wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would try. It would be almost impossible in the current climate though, so I would be unlikely to succeed given that I myself could be removed over my position as soon as someone says something distasteful and I'm accused of either supporting it or creating a hostile environment for other employees. But the world I want to live in is one where employers take no action whatsoever for opinions expressed off the clock.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#558

Post by ianleeclark »

scrollaway wrote: post #548
ianleeclark wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 inappro…

> But it is far less appropriate, edging on trolling, for you to categorize every single work relationship as "women being harassed in the workplace".

Try reading my post again, my dude. Maybe go a little slower. Read it backwards to forwards, forwards to backwards, and then try setting aside ideological goggles for a second.

We're talking about a workplace where women are doing something completely and totally bizarre: they're carrying around plants so they don't have to engage with someone. There's no situation in which that isn't totally bizarre--people don't just walk around with potted plants for the fun of it.

So, I say, "Hey, maybe they shouldn't have to deal with this," yet I'm the one who needs to "familiarize yourself." What a deranged cadre of people the lot of you are--you're so desperate to explain away this abuse that you can't even keep the context of a thread only 3 or 4 posts deep.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#559

Post by doubleunplussed »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #357
oska wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that it's been automatically removed due to a large number of people flagging it, rather than manually removed by the admins. My understanding is that automatic removals (from flagging) get reviewed and unremoved if the admins don't see a good case for the submission being flag-worthy.

There's also anti-flamewar system in HN that penalizes stories that accrue too many comments too quickly; I'm betting this is what makes this and similar stories drop from the front page very fast.

It's kind of a shame. Some issues just create a lot of discussion. This one is controversial, and maybe you could call it a flame war, but I'd prefer it stay up.

I'm finding these threads by googling "Hacker News Stallman" every couple of days.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#560

Post by doubleunplussed »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #96
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…

His creepy, shirtless "get on my mattress" calls to female undergrads at MIT register as more than being awkward or autistic. That alone should be unacceptable behavior for faculty.

What an absurd telephone-game evolution of any actual facts. It disgusts me that intelligent people are taking part in this witch hunt. Stop it.
Post reply on HN