Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

medium.com

221–230 of 580 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#221

We are, sadly, entering a new age of conformity. Aligning yourself with what main stream society thinks is correct is now more important than anything else. The response of course is that "bad behavior should never be excused, regardless of ability!" which leads to a losing argument in which we try to say what kind of good excuses what kind of bad. But this presupposes the conformist stance: that fitting in with the…

Bull fucking shit.

What got RMS in trouble was not questioning the status quo. It was exploiting the status quo.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#222
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman did not defend Epstein in any way, shape, or form.

He minimized it. What he intended to do doesn't matter. That's not my point. What matters is that his words could be interpreted that way and that he was affiliated with MIT.

If there's one place in our society that should welcome discussion of ugly issues it should be our universities, particularly the few as storied as MIT.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#223

Perhaps this author is unaware of the number of statements Stallman has made regarding pedophilia on his website over the years [1]. If RMS has changed his point of view, he can go back to those parts of his blog and add an update. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=pedophile+site%3Astallman.or...

100% agreed. This is one of the worst examples: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I don't see how people can defend these kind of opinions he's advocating.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#224
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about all the women he made feel unsafe, should we not be inclusive of them too? If someone cannot handle social situations without making people feel unsafe they should not be in a leadership position.

So by that logic, if there was a group of mostly autistic/aspie men and they felt unsafe around one neurotypical woman, she should be the one to lose her position at a university, lose her position at a nonprofit that she founded, and be kicked out on the street, right? "Feeling unsafe" is an absurd metric to use. Lots of things feel unsafe but are actually extremely safe. Many people feel unsafe flying on airplanes.…

> if there was a group of mostly autistic/aspie men and they felt unsafe around one neurotypical woman, she should be the one to lose her position at a university

Yes, if her behaviour was not workplace appropriate.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#225
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman did not defend Epstein in any way, shape, or form.

He minimized it. What he intended to do doesn't matter. That's not my point. What matters is that his words could be interpreted that way and that he was affiliated with MIT.

He did not minimize Epstein's behavior. The original interpretation of his words in that way is not reasonable and may well have been an outright lie instead of an honest misinterpretation.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#226
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many third person pronouns that people have suggested that are not widely in use today, including singular they. Ze, zhe, per, zer, e, etc. [1] have all been proposed at various points in time (and some have resurfaced in the past several years) and there are people who identify by these pronouns. If singular 'they' is valid, then so are they (plural, referring to the alternative third person gender neutral…

So ... I probably shouldn't write anything here. Anyway, in the spirit of learning and communication and respectful dialogue ... I think one of the tensions here is between people who think that providing one non-gendered pronoun is a sufficient individual vs. societal customization setting versus those who think that every(-ish) stated individual pronoun choice being mandatory is the appropriate and respectful custo…

I actually do think there is too much focus on pronouns and gender, though for some people it is something that preoccupies a lot of their life for various reasons. I'd imagine a trans person is confronted with these issues frequently because they see their identity being questioned so frequently. I do think there is something to be said about how western society may inform the ways in which people that don't conform to traditional gender identities behave, but that's not particularly relevant to pronouns, I don't think.

With that being said, I think English is a language ill-suited for 'gender agency' because the gendered pronouns are third person and innately require other people to acknowledge your preferences. You're placing a burden on someone else to not only remember your preference in name, but also in your pronouns. To me this is what I find so troublesome about the whole affair since I typically prefer to avoid placing burdens on other people to accommodate me. I also think that third person pronouns exist to be convenient and that treating them as a second name makes it as inconvenient to use as a proper noun. If someone prefers singular they, I'm much more likely to just always refer to them properly because it requires less effort to think about the sentences I am saying/typing, albeit awkward to my ears.

In Japanese, there are gendered first person pronouns that allow a person to easily communicate this part of their identity. Those who identify with the male gender might say "boku" or "ore," while someone who identifies as a female might use "atashi." Those that don't identify with either could use "watashi," since it is gender neutral.

It doesn't place any unnecessary burden on other people. You get to communicate it yourself. You don't have to rely on other people to acknowledge your gender in their language, you can do it yourself.

As for the 'they' pronoun, Stallman is at least correct in that it does present itself with challenges that other pronouns don't face. Since it has a duality of meaning it can create a lot of confusion, particularly when it's in print since there are far less context clues usually. In fact I implicitly pointed this out in my original comment.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is it's selectively applied. I can just as easily argue that rap music as "harmful" and what they said were "terrible" things, and yet there is no public outrage over that. In western society, it seems, thugs are exempt from all the politically correct standards that the rest of us are expected to abide by.

Apart from rap just, really, really not at all being anywhere in the same ballpark, there are examples where rap music has undergone social scrutiny and changed as a result: Cop killing lyrics. I'm not saying they don't occur at all any more, but they're considered much less acceptable than in the 90's.

sure, you can find am exception if you look hard enough.

But my point being is that the outrage crowd simply doesn't apply the same level of outrage to thugs as they do everyone else in any by-and-large way.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#228
post #181
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why just women?

> Why just women? Because they are the people who have been made uncomfortable by his behavior. If it were men, or also men, I'm sure the parent post would have read "men or women". This is not an abstract case, so implying that somehow men are underrepresented when dealing with a person whose (alleged) behavior has been targeted at women sounds a little petty. Imagine someone is accused of abusing children, and the…

The post just asks a question. I'm sure plenty of men were also made uncomfortable by his behavior and stubborness with regards to free software. I'm just asking why exclude those?

I don't think doing uncomfortable things necessarily means harmful abuse, so your metaphor doesn't help me much.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#229
post #4

The thing is though, the outrage mob usually doesn't care about facts. Their outrage is always based on the heat of the moment. It even seems this mode has been spilling over into our justice system lately, which is a very unfortunate and a sad state of affairs.

And also, sometimes the mob is right. The mob is guilty of shooting first and asking questions later but in this case, just read what he said and wrote, the mob is both guilty and correct.

History is written by the victor.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#230
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by that logic, if there was a group of mostly autistic/aspie men and they felt unsafe around one neurotypical woman, she should be the one to lose her position at a university, lose her position at a nonprofit that she founded, and be kicked out on the street, right? "Feeling unsafe" is an absurd metric to use. Lots of things feel unsafe but are actually extremely safe. Many people feel unsafe flying on airplanes.…

Well, if she had a decades-long pattern of abusive and tasteless behavior towards people with less power than her, such that people went out of their way to avoid interacting with her at all, then yeah, I’d say hit the bricks. You’re tilting at strawmen to get around the fact that Stallman can’t seem to control his inappropriate behavior. This isn’t a hypothetical, perfectly spherical, frictionless situation, this is…

1. You apparently didn't read the article. Otherwise you would have read that he didn't make that sign.

2. It's very peculiar that you would equate admiring/objectifying women with violence against homosexuals.

Post reply on HN