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

561–570 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#561

Post by CathedralBorrow »

doubleunplussed wrote: post #557
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So ideally you'd have no qualms with a preschool teacher who blogs about how sex with children is perfectly fine in their spare time?

Or an employee who regularly publishes manifestos on why people of certain skin colors should be murdered and exterminated?

These are extreme examples of course, but you are saying that ideally no one should experience any consequences for expressing any opinion outside of work.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#562

Post by dredmorbius »

CPLX wrote: post #536
michannne wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 widesp…

Within recent memory, the age of legal marriage has been as low as 14 in certain US states. New York State raised the minimum from 14 to 18 in 2017:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-ends-child-marriage-ra...

The same article notes that two states, North Carolina and Alaska have a specified minimum age of 14, and 27 states lack any specific minimum age.

I'm not arguing that the low (or no) minimum age laws are right. I am pointing out that standards, and laws, within the US, and within the past few years, have included marriage, and presumably sexual relations, among minors.

That has been changing, but it's a change that's well within the lifetimes of many adults. Richard Stallman, aged 66, has lived through a period of pretty profound change around many of these norms. Again, not to excuse behaviour, but possibly to explain a possible basis for it.

Strong cultural shifts, should you have the pleasure of living through some yourself, are remarkable to witness and experience.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#563

Post by ukj »

toxik wrote: post #236
barry-cotter wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the US isn’t an ideological monoculture. The woke are ~8% of the US population. No one in China cares. The social strata in India and Pakistan that ape the English speaking world is on the retreat politically. This cultural moment is mostly a US thing, and to a lesser extent an Anglosphere thing, with especially English proficient vassal states like the Dutch or Scandinavians also taking part. If it ever burns o…

It may be true that "the woke," as they are so disparagingly called, is a small group. Actually, I'd say 8% isn't a very small group at all -- but that is besides the point. The point is that this small group has much more than 8% impact on the outcomes of events like these. They may be 8% of the general population, but they are 99% of the people who care at all.

Relevant reading:

1. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Logical conclusion: To be intolerant of intolerance is a moral virtue.

I am having trouble deciding if this is a race to the top or bottom.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#565

Post by Chris2048 »

CPLX wrote: post #127
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.

Yes, I believe publicly advocating for certain things can severely break cultural norms and make it impossible for you to effectively hold a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting. Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? You can go to work and scream at people at the top of your lungs? Tell the receptionist you’re glad she had a miscarriage? Use the sink as a u…

> no social norms violation

There is a difference between disagreement with a norm (or, in this case, a hypothetical argument that doesn't advocate either way), and a violation. When did Stallman advocate against "fuck[ing] minors"?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#566

Post by doubleunplussed »

hu3 wrote: post #350

I'd like to understand HN's ranking algorithm. At the top of the frontpage: - Mesh Spreadsheet - 66 points, 2 hours ago At the bottom of the frontpage: - In Defense of Richard Stallman - 463 points, 1 hour ago Archive: http://archive.fo/Mc5qV

The algorithm supposedly penalises large numbers of comments rapidly being made. Ostensibly it's a "flamewar detection" mechanism, supposed to discourage threads full of arguing. Whilst this topic is potentially exactly that, I'm not sure how the algorithm prevents flagging false positives - sometimes there is going to be a massive thread for appropriate reasons. I would also like to be allowed to discuss this issue here without knowing the thread is buried, even though it is controversial.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#567

Post by gus_massa »

CPLX wrote: post #230
ndury wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' AFAIK there are plenty of high positioned people in important positions whom have a special preference to something. Whether it be a kink or a tota…

I mean the guy can think whatever the fuck he wants. He can even tell his friends. He can use nipple clamps and be consentingly spanked with kitchen implements. Nobody gives a shit about any of that stuff. But if you publicly say stuff like this: "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." "I think…

What about other topics like alcohol? Can I think that the 21 years old limit is weird?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#568

Post by Chris2048 »

kolektiv wrote: post #18

Sigh. No. It's not just about one incidence of some mistakenly pedantic comments, as has been made clear by many, many people. It's a pattern of behaviour over years combined with no interest in listening to other people or accepting that he might be in the wrong. His behaviour towards women in particular has resulted in a lot of people sharing stories of his behaviour which, on their own, should be enough for someon…

> no interest in listening to other people or accepting that he might be in the wrong

About what exactly? Are the "other people" also as humble in their opinions?

> This latest incident

There is no "incident", his comments are entirely fair if quoted properly.

> it's pure assertion

much like the the "stories of his behaviour"

> going and asking women what comes to mind when they hear about people like this

What a standard to aspire to - forget "presumption of innocence", the new standard is "what come to mind" for whatever bias floats from the unconscious at the time.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#569

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

> Stallman defended Minsky

> People are angry at Stallman for what he actually said, not what you think they think he said.

This isn't the lie we're talking about, whatever else people are angry about, many are angry about:

"MIT Scientist Defends Marvin Minsky: Epstein Victim Likely ‘Presented Herself’ as ‘Entirely Willing’"

This headline implies Stallman was defending Epstein, not Minsky, and suggest he said the victim was "willing".

> and he had to ignore the legal definitions of both words

He didn't ignore them, he criticised their usage and how they are perceived by the public; Are you going to comment on the full context and motivation behind Stallmans' comment?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#570

Post by sergioj97 »

DanBC wrote: post #161
ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society: "We must embrace neuro-diversiry" Midly Autistic, not-good-looking man: Shows signs of autism Society: "No! Not like that! Kill it! Kill it!"

Stop using autism to defend someone who's said that raping children doesn't harm them.

He stated that the absence of consent is what makes it harmful. He is against rape, independently of the victims age.
Post reply on HN