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

601–610 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#601

Post by doubleunplussed »

foldr wrote: post #598
doubleunplussed wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fine. Are the hypothetical weird poly people ineligible to work for MIT because they openly advertise their enthusiasm for cuddle puddles?

Edit: also, there are plenty of people accusing Stallman of sexual assault. But I'm happy to argue under the pretence that that isn't true.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#602

Post by [deleted] »

stelonix wrote: post #477
[deleted] wrote: post #324

[deleted]

See, what this post represents (and all these upvotes) is that there is a number of people who disagree with you and with "cancel culture". We do not believe in taboos as well: everything can be rationally debated and gut reactions are not only detrimental to the advancement of mankind, but is actually a very powerful "dumbficator" of science and logic. The people who should feel ashamed are those who spread this tox…

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#604

Post by [deleted] »

stelonix wrote: post #477
[deleted] wrote: post #324

[deleted]

See, what this post represents (and all these upvotes) is that there is a number of people who disagree with you and with "cancel culture". We do not believe in taboos as well: everything can be rationally debated and gut reactions are not only detrimental to the advancement of mankind, but is actually a very powerful "dumbficator" of science and logic. The people who should feel ashamed are those who spread this tox…

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#605

Post by pron »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #343
pron wrote: post #276

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 not beca…

> 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…

https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#606

Post by praptak »

tokai wrote: post #579
praptak wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a public post from 2003. Funny how nobody has dug it up for 16 years.

The post has been widely disseminated on 4chan's /g/ for many years. So it wasn't totally forgotten.

I meant nobody has dug it up for the purpose of ousting Stallman. The fact that it's from 2003 and not exactly secret makes me doubt that it had any significance in Stallman being forced to step down. It looks more like the pitchforks & torches mob first decided they want his head and then looked for justification.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#607

Post by username90 »

throw0101a wrote: post #152
klingonopera wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't get X good thing without Y bad behaviour. Consider the following: Humans have limited capacity, thus time, money and energy spent limiting Y inhibits resources available to creating X.

While life is short, it is long enough that people can learn not to be assholes / jerks IMHO: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule * https://hbr.org/2007/03/why-i-wrote-the-no-asshole-rule * https://www.td.org/insights/dont-tolerate-brilliant-jerks * https://www.inc.com/jim-schleckser/why-netflix-doesn-t-toler...

In many scenarios the most important skill you can have is the ability to ignore common sense. The drawback of that ability is that people without common sense are very often seen as assholes since most of our social fabric is based on mutual common sense.

Or in other words, a person who is brilliant thanks to his lack of common sense would not have been brilliant if he had common sense. And convincing a person without common sense that learning common sense would be good for him is very hard, most likely he will just ignore it like he did all other common sense things he have been told to do in his life. Therefore it is inevitable that asshole leaders who lack common sense will continue to appear and thrive, because those with common sense can't do the job.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#608

Post by baron_harkonnen »

CPLX wrote: post #584
traderjane wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people were right to suggest that black people need special policing at the time when it was the right political message, or Bernie Sanders was quite mistaken to advocate for gay rights at a time when it was a bad issue for any candidate. Many Americans still believe that black people have special criminal characteristics or that homosexuality is a severe spiritual evil. Perhaps more social harmony could’ve been a…

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.

I had sexual relations with a 23 year old when I was 16. Not by a long shot would I describe that as rape. I also then and now would not consider myself a "child" at 16.

This is a very new and very strange trend to redefine all teenagers as children and the moral panic around this is interesting to say the least. The extreme backlash against any slight questioning of this is likewise something people should be skeptical about.

Your counter-examples are historically poor choices as 50 years ago (less in many parts of the US) the majority of people would have seen homosexuality as a perversion indistinguishable from pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescent children, not 17 years olds), and miscegenation, a word we don't even use any more, would have held the same status if you go back just a bit further.

Again, 50 years ago you could just have been one of the people who would have said "... you'll conclude that sodomy is one of the bad things" or go back another 50 and "... you'll conclude that intermixing pure blood is one of the bad things"

This moral absolutism is definitely not part of a "bright line" in our culture, and its sudden and rapid emergence needs both more questioning and more understanding. Of course anyone who proposes this is a "child rapist" in your view so we likely won't get much discourse on this topic anytime soon.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#609

Post by [deleted] »

scrollaway wrote: post #593
ianleeclark wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dera…

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#610

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN