Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 580 posts

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

#241

Post by unityByFreedom »

NiekvdMaas wrote: post #223
unityByFreedom wrote: post #163

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.

Yeah. It's not clear to me whether or not RMS still believes these things. He may need time to collect himself. In the mean time, I don't understand blog posts like this one that completely gloss over his past statements which remain the same without further comment.

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

#242

Post by ineedasername »

steveeq1 wrote: post #227
ineedasername wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe I've lost the line of thinking here. I thought we were talking about black face, and why people are offended by it. It's an offensive racial stereotype. I really don't see anything comparable about thugs. I'm not even clear on what you mean by thug outrage: is it that thugs exist? Is it media portrayal of thugs? Is it that thugs do or say bad things? I am honestly confused by this comparison.

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

#243

Post by strenholme »

ralfd wrote: post #191
favorited wrote: post #5

Here[0] is a post by someone else who (by his own account) "worked for RMS longer than any other programmer." While he obviously has had a long relationship with Stallman, one of his key takeaways was: "RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses to a pattern of decades of poor behavior. It does not matter if they are appropriate responses to a single email thread, because the…

And here [0] is someone else who (by his own accord) worked with both RMS and Bushnell and is saying Bushnell is bullshitting and grinding an axe: [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/thomas_lord/status/11744336549420... > Bushnell and I overlapped in our employment at FSF. ... The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle i…

Thank you for the link. My impression is that RMS mainly had some opinions which were leftover from the “free love” movement of the 1960s and 1970s which were not particularly shocking or out of line back then, but are considered job-losing toxic opinions here in 2019.

For the record, as someone who saw that whole movement first hand, I disagree with the whole “free love” movement and think sex should only be done in a lifetime monogamous commitment.

I have met and have had dinner with RMS; he came off to me as a very kind person who has very strong principles. I do not see the imaginary monster that the outrage clickbait media is trying to make RMS be in him.

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

#245

Post by kd5bjo »

mattsfrey wrote: post #156
Pfhreak wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may find, as you age, that this viewpoint takes on nuance. Yes, we should root our world in scientific thinking. We should approach problems logically. We should make our decisions rationally. We should be efficient in how we allocate our resources. But there are times when being human outweighs those interests. There are times when we should be deliberately inefficient because too much efficiency can cause harm.…

But ultimately in those alienating conclusions you were _right_, how do we forget this? What does it make us to disregard uncomfortable truths?

It’s not about disregarding uncomfortable truths, it’s recognizing that speaking truth in an uncomfortable way accomplishes very little. To get someone to change their behavior, you need to first show them that you understand their perspective, even if you disagree with it.

Otherwise, they’ll mentally dismiss your arguments as coming from a different tribe without really listening— emotions and group identity are very strong psycological forces, so you need to take them into account when crafting your own actions.

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

#246

Post by xenadu02 »

There's a rule: If Stallman is invited to speak at your conference under NO circumstances should you allow him to stay at your place, nor at the home of anyone you care about or even don't outright hate (ask Miguel de Icaza about it some time).

Why does that rule exist? Because he has, many times, shown up and refused to leave for weeks. He brings random flings back to your place. He refuses to shower or observe basic hygiene. He's the worst houseguest imaginable.

Hell, why did VA Linux send an email all female employees letting them know when Stallman would be visiting so they could work from home or make themselves scarce? For that matter, how many people (especially women) dropped out of MIT, moved to another major, or left the lab because of Stallman?

Why does Stallman feel entitled to abuse other people's hospitality? Why does he get to do as he pleases? Why are his feelings and his experiences the only ones that matter?

I think this has bearing on the current issues: Stallman has been protected by those around him. He was protected by Minsky early on. This taught him that he could do as he pleased without consequences. He was never forced to learn socially acceptable behavior.

You sometimes see the same thing with child stars or pampered celebrities: No one ever tells them "no". They never face real consequences for their actions. Everyone around them makes excuses, either because they look up to them or because they're the gravy train. Things escalate until a) they cross the line so badly they can't weasel out of it or b) some "straw that broke the camel's back" situation arises. In situation "a" the person is often confused and bewildered because they've done as they pleased for a very long time. They don't understand why the current situation should be different. In situation "b" people often focus on the trivialities of the current incident, ignoring everything that came before it.

Am I saying Stallman should have been run out on a rail early on? Not at all... but Minsky shouldn't have excused Stallman's behavior. The first time Stallman cornered a woman in an elevator at MIT and blocked her from leaving Minsky should have, at the least, sat him down and said "stop it or you are out". We do a great disservice by sweeping complaints under the rug or excusing "geniuses". Bad behavior doesn't usually magically clear up, it tends to get worse over time as people learn they are the chosen ones and won't be questioned.

Does Stallman deserve the hate he's getting as a result of some posts to an email list? I don't know.

Should Stallman have been kicked off the FSF board a long time ago? Absolutely.

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

#247

Post by jplayer01 »

ralfd wrote: post #191
favorited wrote: post #5

Here[0] is a post by someone else who (by his own account) "worked for RMS longer than any other programmer." While he obviously has had a long relationship with Stallman, one of his key takeaways was: "RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses to a pattern of decades of poor behavior. It does not matter if they are appropriate responses to a single email thread, because the…

And here [0] is someone else who (by his own accord) worked with both RMS and Bushnell and is saying Bushnell is bullshitting and grinding an axe: [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/thomas_lord/status/11744336549420... > Bushnell and I overlapped in our employment at FSF. ... The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle i…

Frankly, Bushnell and the response to him clearly show none of this should be decided in the court of public opinion. Even if either of these people are correct, none of what we've read or heard so far is in any way sufficient to condemn Stallmann and ruin his career and none of us is in an appropriate position to make that determination. He underwent utter character assassination in the media who went to great lengths to pretend his argument regarding that other MIT professor was about defending Epstein and pedophilia and I'm still mad that so many people fell for it. Maybe Stallmann might possibly be a terrible piece of shit, but this wasn't the way to go.

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

#248

Post by inimino »

Pfhreak wrote: post #105
marmada wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why his pronoun scheme is antagonistic. He still respects that you want gender neutral pronouns, he just won't use they because he thinks they has a standard plural meaning. I don't understand why people have an obligation to use "they" specifically as long as they respect the gender neutral concept.

> I don't understand why people have an obligation to use "they" specifically as long as they respect the gender neutral concept. The same reason we use people's names. Or their nicknames. Or their middle names sometimes. Or their stage names, noms de plume, or noms de guerre. When you are introduced to someone you expect to be spending some time around, you might ask them, "Do you prefer Henry or Hank? Charles or Ch…

Just a few points to present another perspective.

- RMS's main reason for introducing "per, pers, ..." was to use them in written English; this was just his own weird solution to a problem that a lot of people have noticed in modern English, the lack of a good singular pronoun for "a person" in general, without referring to anyone in particular. Lots of people have come up with crazy ideas for this, not many people are passionate enough about their use of language to write long blog posts about them, but, well, rms isn't everyone.

- Using people's preferred names is a matter of common courtesy, and this has been the case pretty much for all time. People having preferred pronouns, in contrast, is relatively new, and even 50 years ago nobody would have been familiar with this idea. It would be charitable to not judge an older generation by the standards of the young when something is changing even within our lifetimes.

- Insisting on using only full names would be bizarre, but surely nobody would take that as a personal attack, because presumably nobody would feel "singled out" by this. I think if you want to know if RMS was trying to antagonize non-binary folks or if he was rather just being prickly and a little eccentric about language, you would need to look further than this one idea of his. As far as I know, he is rather progressive on these issues, and he also has a history of passionately advocating unusual word choices, almost none of which have caught on, so I would lean towards this being just another example of his eccentric opinions about language, rather than trying to antagonize anyone.

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

#249

Post by lawnchair_larry »

nepeckman wrote: post #97
d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The facts are that these days you just can't discuss some topics "logically" in a public setting. There are forbidden topics that only have one acceptable position. For example, it's not acceptable for anyone to discuss why blackface is offensive and clowns/mimes are not.

The blackface discussion isn't taboo, it's just been discussed to death and there's only one reasonable position. Google minstrel shows. The history of blackface is one of mocking black people. There is no way to "logically" argue that it isn't offensive because there are no facts to back up that claim.

There are many ways to logically argue this. I myself find it very confusing, and I am even a bit skeptical that people who cry racism actually understand it themselves. The Canadian PM was just in a brownface scandal for wearing dark makeup as part of an Arabian themed costume party. Canada never had minstrel shows making fun of brown people, yet this was abhorrent racism that may cost him the election, for essentially paying homage with his costume. It now seems to be the case that any white person who darkens their skin for any reason is a racist, which is obviously absurd.

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

#250

Post by mattsfrey »

kd5bjo wrote: post #245
mattsfrey wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ultimately in those alienating conclusions you were _right_, how do we forget this? What does it make us to disregard uncomfortable truths?

It’s not about disregarding uncomfortable truths, it’s recognizing that speaking truth in an uncomfortable way accomplishes very little. To get someone to change their behavior, you need to first show them that you understand their perspective, even if you disagree with it. Otherwise, they’ll mentally dismiss your arguments as coming from a different tribe without really listening— emotions and group identity are ver…

A nuanced response, but my main point is about self censorship, what does one do if ultimately their conclusion is contradictory to their opponents. Acquiesce to maintain the peace or state their claim? I personally will always back truth regardless of its comfort to the audience whoever they might be
Post reply on HN