In Defense of Richard Stallman • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#591

Post by CPLX » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

traderjane wrote: post #586

CPLX wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, gay rights and equal rights for minorities are admirable. Advocating for adults to rape children, on the other hand, is reprehensible. Your argument appears to be that there is no way to tell the difference between good things and bad things. My counterargument is that there are ways to tell the difference. And that when you do, you'll conclude that adults raping children is one of the bad things.

Gay rights are admirable to you. Rights for minorities like Latinos or blacks are admirable to you. But you don’t speak for places like America, which is diverse enough to politically contemplate whether gay people should be married or have kids, or whether Muslims and immigrants cause no-go zones. Those politicians which advocate for antagonism against Latinos and other minorities are reading the room too.

That's correct. They're admirable to me.

Conversely the idea of adults fucking children is not admirable to MIT. So they fired him.

Nobody's talking about censorship, or politicians. We're talking about an organization saying hey we can't have a guy that seems to think adults fucking children is OK being our leader or representative. That's definitely within their rights.

You can try to die on some hill of principle here but 10/10 times if you write blog posts saying something like "hey, so pedophilia is not that big of a deal right?" you're going to have some issues in the professional world.

Not sure why everyone is pretending to be confused.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#592

Post by mpweiher » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:12 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #47

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

> Our culture has made a very bright line decision

"Age of consent laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 14 to 18"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Things just got a lot murkier, didn't they. Actually, they have always been a lot murkier. Because "our culture" isn't actually homogenous. And these things have changed a lot over time.

> Expressing doubt about this cultural norm

Well, which norm excactly? The one at 14? Or the one at 18?

"some jurisdictions may also make allowances for minors engaged in sexual acts with each other, rather than a single age."

Murkier.

"There are many "grey areas" in this area of law, some regarding unspecific and untried legislation, others brought about by debates regarding changing societal attitudes, and others due to conflicts between federal and state laws. These factors all make age of consent an often confusing subject, and a topic of highly charged debates"

Are all the people in a society that has the 14 boundary horrible beyond the pale?

Or maybe things are a bit more complicated than you make them out to be.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#593

Post by scrollaway » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

ianleeclark wrote: post #558

scrollaway wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bizar…

I've read your post. Your post is a reply to someone who is talking about "all the millions of people who are happily married to people they met in professional environments".

When you replied to that post, you stopped talking about MIT and Stallman, and you addressed a general situation: "Is it okay to have romantic relationships in the workplace". Maybe you should quit jumping on the opportunity to call people deranged/desperate/whatever and revise your own posts, because it's possible you're in the wrong.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#594

Post by owl57 » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

> he could make everybody (not just women) "feel uncomfortable around him" in some ways

I had a colleague tell he won't invite X (a local celebrity with a lot of similarity in character with RMS) to our team because he "always feels like a fool when X is around".

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#595

Post by phaus » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #485

phaus wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep going to extremes. I'm not saying everyone treats autistic people perfectly, I'm just not agreeing that most people are so repulsed that they feel physically unsafe around us and treat us like creeps. The act of socializing itself is exhausting to me, but I don't necessarily feel like I have to hide everything about myself, its more like I have to pay attention to how I respond to people because I might say…

What extremes? I said Stallman was an equal opportunity autistic asshole rather than a sexual predator. You impugned my social skills. I never said people felt threatened by autistic people. They’re disgusted. Just like fat or ugly people. People aren’t creeped out by scary, violent men, they’re afraid of them. Being creeped out is about disgust, not fear. I have no comment about society because that’s every individu…

one extreme:

Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible.

The other extreme is the way you interpret my statements to mean that I have some delusionally idealistic view of humanity. Reality lies between your overly bleak assessment of average people and the perfectly accepting world you mistakenly attributed to me.

I acknowledge that some people are jerks. However, most people try to get along with people when they interact with them. The people who don't, or who are unusually bad at it are often the neurotypical people.

The word creepy can mean fear or disgust. Frequently in the context of women thinking a guy is a creep, they mean some amount of both. If that's not what you meant, fair enough.

Are you disgusted by fat people, the mentally disabled, or people that aren't beautiful? I don't think that's as normal as you seem to think it is.

There are verifiable prejudices towards overweight people but you make it sound like people can't stand to see them.

Also, don't you think all sorts of self-help groups are self selecting for people with negative experiences?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#596

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

phaus wrote: post #595

barry-cotter wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What extremes? I said Stallman was an equal opportunity autistic asshole rather than a sexual predator. You impugned my social skills. I never said people felt threatened by autistic people. They’re disgusted. Just like fat or ugly people. People aren’t creeped out by scary, violent men, they’re afraid of them. Being creeped out is about disgust, not fear. I have no comment about society because that’s every individu…

one extreme: Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible. The other extreme is the way you interpret my statements to mean that I have some delusionally idealistic view of humanity. Reality lies between your overly bleak assessment of average people and the perfectly accepting world you mistakenly attributed to me. I acknowledge that some people are j…

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#597

Post by mpweiher » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #234

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…

> 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?' No, it means that if you think raping children is okay you don't get to say that as part of your work, unless your work is for a pro-child-abuse…

The age of consent in China is 14. I am assuming that most people there are OK with this.

So, in your opinion, Chinese people are automatically disqualified for any and all leadership positions?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#598

Post by foldr » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

doubleunplussed wrote: post #577

foldr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/justneckbeardthings/comments/2vkeze...

So are weird polyamorous people who are into "cuddle puddles" committing sexual assault or something similar by advertising that fact? It seems to me that Stallman advertising that he likes cuddles is automatically considered creepy, beyond the pale, whereas if a properly woke community of appropriately diverse individuals did the same, it would be just considered part of that culture and accepted. What's more, Stall…

>So are weird polyamorous people who are into "cuddle puddles" committing sexual assault or something similar by advertising that fact?

Nobody is accusing RMS of committing sexual assault.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#599

Post by CPLX » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

frabbit wrote: post #589

CPLX wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, gay rights and equal rights for minorities are admirable. Advocating for adults to rape children, on the other hand, is reprehensible. Your argument appears to be that there is no way to tell the difference between good things and bad things. My counterargument is that there are ways to tell the difference. And that when you do, you'll conclude that adults raping children is one of the bad things.

It may be unintentional on your part but your post seems to suggest that rms argued that adults raping children was acceptable. If that was intentional the you are lying. If it was not intentional the it's ironic that you are so sloppy and cavalier in your wording on a topic which is all about precision in language. Please stop.

He did argue that adults raping children was acceptable, many times over the course of years. There's quotes in this thread.

Any sex between adults and minors is rape, that's what the concept of statutory rape means. He has expressed that those interactions could be mitigated by "willing" and "voluntary" actions by the children, and that in those situations there's no real harm done.

That's literally what he said. He's completely and totally within his rights to say that. I will support his rights to the death. But that saying shit like that is going to get you socially shunned, predictably, and I'm fine with a society that does that.

Society, and the groups he leads, have the right to find those statements reprehensible and cut ties with him. And I think they should.

I mean what's the counterargument that you're making, that he only kind of implied that raping kids was OK? That he merely insinuated it? That his suggestion that pedophilia was not that big of a deal fell short of actual advocacy?

Assuming you successfully win the argument that there's an important distinction here how does that change the answer?

The core point I've attempted to make is that if you write blog posts about how kids getting fucked by adults is no big deal you might lose your job.

Do you find that concept confusing? I bet you don't. Nobody really does. He knew he was going to make people upset saying that and didn't care. That, in fact, is likely why he did it.

Eventually, his actions had consequences.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#600

Post by phaus » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #314

shademaan wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, Oh this is hilarious. Do you realize how many people -- not just men -- in CS, physics, mathematics are autistic, especially in places like MIT? Places like that are teeming with autistic people who somehow manage not to make their students and colleagues uncomfortable. I'll even be so bold as to claim neurotypicals are actually a minority in some of those subjects. Th…

I’m not saying he’s oppressed. He’s a super giant nerd and people don’t like nerds. Other nerds don’t like nerds. No one owes anyone else shit. Normal people don’t like fat or ugly people either, and avoid them too. The idea that autistic people do not make allistic people uncomfortable is completely at odds with my experience. The more obviously autistic someone is the less allistic people want to be near them. Peop…

They look funny, they stim, they do that flappy thing with their hands, or rock.

The problem is you are attributing the low end of high functioning with all of them. Either you have also met autistic people much closer to normal than that, or you simply haven't noticed them because you can't tell the difference.

>I’m not saying he’s oppressed. He’s a super giant nerd and people don’t like nerds

At some point most people mature enough to realize that everyone's a nerd about something and stop caring. Most people with a college education and an actual career end up meeting all sorts of people and realizing that cliques are stupid. There are still some high schoolesque antics at every company, but generally that has been my experience.