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

611–620 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#611

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

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.

> We do not have to tolerate terrible people to get results.

You are totally correct.

I see no reason to tolerate people that go around lying and digging dirt in order to defame people...

I also see no reason to tolerate people that blindly jump on rumours in order to push their political goals.

I definitively see no reason to tolerate people that seek to erode principles of justice on which our society is founded.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#612

Post by ernst_klim »

CPLX wrote: post #599
frabbit wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

You do understand that rape can't be voluntary, and voluntary sex is not a rape?

>Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.

It's in the definition. If there is a consent, there is no rape.

Hence, Stallman is not advocating for rape.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#613

Post by DanBC »

roenxi wrote: post #349
DanBC wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who hole weird and objectionable views And if they publicly talk about those weird views they may find themselves being asked to leave their organisation, especially if those views are that child sexual abuse isn't so bad. > in Australia consent is age 16 so he had a point there. Can you link to the Australian law that shows the age of consent for coerced prostitutes is 16?

Well, yeah. Stallman didn't talk about this sort of thing publicly. His talks were on software licensing. This latest conversation, for example, was leaked because originally it was private. > Can you link to the Australian law that shows the age of consent for coerced prostitutes is 16? Here you go. http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/cons...

So that law clearly isn't relevant. How about this? http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/cons...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#614

Post by bsder »

icebraining wrote: post #409
lettergram wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t know the details, but she was given advanced warning anytime Stallman was headed over so that she could leave. He was a creep and women at the company knew to stay away. If we don’t have a specific account and details are unknown, then I don’t think this is a fair characterization. Ive had others think Stallman is creepy too. They actively avoided him, but he never did anything to them. Sexual advances in a…

> it sounds like it wasn’t far enough outside the acceptable conduct to warrant anything. That's not how things work. Workplace "justice" is quite dependent on things like internal politics and personal affiliations. You can't rely tell how bad something was by the disciplinary response.

Stallman is such an annoyance that if there were a credible harassment allegation against him, the MIT administration would have almost certainly made use of it before this.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#615

Post by DanBC »

andrewgioia wrote: post #545
DanBC wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

RMS has previously said that child sexual abuse is not harmful. He's said that the harms of incest can be avoided if people use condoms. He's called for the "end of censorship of child pornography".

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#616

Post by DanBC »

frabbit wrote: post #590
DanBC wrote: post #234

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?' 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…

This is not the first time you have made this untrue allegation DanBC. It is clear now that you are acting in very bad faith. It speaks volumes about your reliability.

Read what RMS says.

1) "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."

2) "Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography", and points out that if in the US you observe the rape of a child, making a video or photo to use as evidence would subject you to a greater penalty than the rapist."

3) "The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.

For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)."

There are plenty of others.

> It speaks volumes about your reliability.

What speaks volumes is your inability to use a search engine. These quotes are trivially easy to find. Why haven't you bothered to look for them? Why have you assumed that RMS could not have possibly said the things he has?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#617

Post by bsder »

Barrin92 wrote: post #10

> They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that he had a mattress in his office. It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. > He held his positions at MIT, GNU, and the FSF for over thirty years, and in that time nobody accused h…

> He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again.

I'm 6 foot+ and 200 pounds+. I make certain women uncomfortable simply by existing. They will view every action I take through a lens of being frightened and intimidated.

Do I deserve to get fired? Obviously not.

I have also had different women ask me to join a meeting because the audience wasn't listening to them because they were so physically small. They needed someone with authority to say "shut up and listen". Those women have no issues with me whatsoever and enlist my assistance

Clearly the problem isn't with me, should the women frightened of me get fired instead? Obviously not.

Now what?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#618

Post by DanBC »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #507
DanBC wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of places where you can talk about what "rape" and "children" mean. There are lots of legal discussion groups that would welcome this conversation. Except he's going to have to meet a somewhat higher bar than "I haven't got a fucking clue what I'm talking about, but here's what I reckon anyway". When someone linked to your organisation is accused of raping a child that's probably a bad time to start…

Can you clarify who you are accusing of raping a child?

I'm not, Stallman is when he says "let's assume Minsky did this".

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#619

Post by traderjane »

CPLX wrote: post #591
traderjane wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I'd characterize your general approach to the issue as "We don't need to debate the morality of a leader because speaking against norms is already disqualifying."

So do you want to look at a leader based on whether they simply violate social thinking, or do you want to discuss "fucking children"? But if I'm not mistaken, just discussing this matter for you is a kind of disqualification. And here you are, basically saying that other people are advocating for pedophelia and fucking kids. Is that your instinct for speech? Do you just want to talk people?

Bernie Sanders spoke for gay rights at a time when it was a bad issue for any candidate. The advice for him as a campaign consultant would be to shutup, wouldn't it? Is this not a leadership sin?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#620

Post by DanBC »

sergioj97 wrote: post #570
DanBC wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He is defending Minsky by saying Minsky did not rape this child.

In this specific example he is not against rape because he is trying to redefine rape to make his colloeague look less guilty of rape.

Post reply on HN