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

661–670 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#661

Post by Fnoord »

johnsea wrote: post #637
argaba wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really have a side here, I am not surprised in the slightest that people say things that others can find offensive (what a shocker). However since we're in the era of unerasable past, its kind of expected for people to do dig up the past. I do wonder if "society" will start applying a consistency stick to what people say. I.e. if they have had a consistent view on say pedophilia in this instance. On that note…

Time to work on the unerasability!

In that case I suggest you apply for a job at NSA.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#662

Post by barry-cotter »

sergioj97 wrote: post #576
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…

> Do you realize how many people -- not just men -- in CS, physics, mathematics are autistic, especially in places like MIT? Do you have any citations for that (for the fact that there's a significant proportion of autistic people who study/work at the MIT)? It's come up a few times in the comment section of this article, and I can't find sources for that claim. Honestly the first time I read it I dismissed it as an…

Stereotypes are mostly accurate[1]. If you don’t think it’s accurate you could just visually compare MIT and Harvard students. The difference in average nerdiness is neither small nor subtle. I hope you will accept the relationship between nerdiness and autism as a given.

[1]https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d4e/4958856859323ecacca918...

> Stereotype (In)Accuracy in Perceptions of Groups and Individuals

> Are stereotypes accurate or inaccurate? We summarize evidence that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable findings in social psychology. We address controversies in this literature, including the long-standing and continuing but unjustified emphasis on stereotype inaccuracy, how to define and assess stereotype accuracy, and whether stereotypic (vs. individuating) information can be used rationally in person perception. We conclude with suggestions for building theory and for future directions of stereotype (in)accuracy research.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#663

Post by pron »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #505
CogitoCogito wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can start here: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi... Start with what exactly? What is this in response to?

This is a follow-up post of the blogger that started the RMS witch hunt.

According to his closest colleagues, there was no witch hunt, but a high-profile incident that drew attention to literally decades of problems: https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#664

Post by tsss »

FactolSarin wrote: post #535
tsss wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you set "making someone uncomfortable" as the bar for ousting people or even criminal charges, it's clear that this can only lead to trouble. There's a reason that the law against insults considers only the impression of a third party. The "victim" feeling insulted is not enough.

I mean, if someone was constantly making me feel uncomfortable at my job, and hitting on me even after I'd ask them to stop, I'd tell my boss and would quit if it wasn't dealt with. If enough people complained and/or quit, that person would eventually be let go. That's just life.

In that case, an impartial third party would probably consider that harassment, regardless of your feelings. And it can be harassment even if they didn't intend to harass you/did it unknowingly.

However, you _feeling_ uncomfortable is not enough. If you feel uncomfortable with people eating meat around you, that's your problem and not harassment, because eating meat is reasonable in our society.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#665

Post by johnsea »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #652
johnsea wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely inappropriate that you use such extreme examples in a thread about RMS. Implicitly you link him to this. I would fire you...

The link is entirely of your making, I even explicitly stated that I'm using an extreme example.

That's true but something always sticks.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#666

Post by TeMPOraL »

pron wrote: post #663
TeMPOraL wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a follow-up post of the blogger that started the RMS witch hunt.

According to his closest colleagues, there was no witch hunt, but a high-profile incident that drew attention to literally decades of problems: https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

Sure there wasn't, no Vice and Forbes articles, no shitstorm all over Twitter and Mastodon, no angry blogposts full of bile spreading lies, no decades of problems suddenly drawing attention, no long HN threads. I must have imagined it.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#667

Post by pron »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #666
pron wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to his closest colleagues, there was no witch hunt, but a high-profile incident that drew attention to literally decades of problems: https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

Sure there wasn't, no Vice and Forbes articles, no shitstorm all over Twitter and Mastodon, no angry blogposts full of bile spreading lies, no decades of problems suddenly drawing attention, no long HN threads. I must have imagined it.

Well, people actually familiar with the situation say that you have (at least the witch hunt aspect), so unless you know better than them, I'd say yeah.

According to those actually familiar with the case, certain recent actions by Stallman drew attention to his problematic decades-long behavior, which finally resulted, after decades of ignored complaints, in his dismissal.

There's no denying the well-established fact that the vast majority of cases of inappropriate behavior goes unpunished; in a few cases, some media attention can lead to action. The percentage of bad actors (and according to those closest to him, Stallman is a bad actor) that are finally disciplined remains, sadly, very low, but it's a start.

There are always hysterics who cry about a PC mob or witch hunts, but those who are interested in the facts, take the time to Google for relevant studies, consider the numbers, and as those shrill claims just don't square with the facts, so are best ignored.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#668

Post by frabbit »

dang wrote: post #628
frabbit wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you can't make your points respectfully, please stop posting here until you can. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don't think it's disrespectful to call out someone who has previously made the _exact same_ mis-representation of a highly contentious issue as acting in bad faith and thus untrustworthy.

There is a concerted and prolonged attempt underway to completely muddy the waters around this issue and either through emotion or insincerity this poster has been hammering away at what they are aware is at best a distortion of the facts.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#669

Post by pron »

EmeraldMoon wrote: post #392
rimliu wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can start here: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

This article is complete garbage. I couldn't even read it in its entirety. > If there are a large number of people in the United States who think that child pornography and sexual intercourse with minors should be legalized, this is the first I’m hearing of it He never even said that! This is just another SJW warrior pissed off about the fact that the reality differs from the fiction she has created for herself. Peop…

> People disagree, people are rude, and you WILL be offended sometimes, in the real world. And learning to deal with it is part of being an adult.

This is a huge misunderstanding of the problem with "offensive".

Suppose that at a work meeting, I, the boss or a well-respected engineer, say, "French people are stupid, and their work is subpar; also, they're liars," or something of the sort. At the meeting none of the French employees are present and no one tells them about it. They are not offended personally at all. However, the damage of this offense is not diminished in the least by their absence. It creates a certain dynamic where their colleagues will disrespect them. They're feelings aren't hurt, but the harm against them is real. How are they supposed to "learn to deal with that," being adults and all?

This is what we SJWs mean when we say "offensive," or, more precisely, this is the main issue for us. Not that someone's feelings are hurt, but that they are diminished by the social dynamics that certain statements and behaviors set in motion.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#670

Post by mirimir »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #659
mirimir wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that he said that children having sex together is OK. Not adults having sex with children. That's not OK. I mean, when I was 10-12, I engaged in private circle jerks with other boys. And we "played Doctor" with girls. No sex, but feeling and "examinations". And spin the bottle games, for taking off clothes and kissing. And holding our brearh, and squeezing each others chests to pass out.

"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it."

OK, I'm wrong.

As a child, I might well have argued that.

But now, I appreciate that children are easily manipulated. So while it's possible that some particular child might have freely chosen to have sex with some particular adult, there's no way to determine that. And so the rule must be that children can't reliably consent.

Still, people have the right to say whatever they like. And people also have the right to vilify them for it. And so, recursively, ad infinitum.

Post reply on HN