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

671–680 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#671

Post by miracle2k »

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.

You seem to classify statutory rape as a subcategory of "rape", and thus I am assuming you would be perfectly content calling anyone convicted of statutory rape a rapist. This is semantically unhelpful. "Rape" is widely understood to mean violent rape, and statutory rape is legally (and to most people, morally) the lesser crime.

There may be cases where even you might find it desirable to make a distinction in language between someone advocating for "violent rape is ok", and someone arguing for example that the existing age of consent in their country should not be increased, which requires acknowledging that the two are really distinct things.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#672

Post by ThrowAway191002 »

paganel wrote: post #647
sergioj97 wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman isn't pro-paedophilia. He stated years ago that he didn't see enough evidence to believe sexual relations with children are harmful for them if they are consensual. That's _not_ believing sexual relations with children can be ok if they are consensual, that's believing you don't have enough evidence to believe the opposite. And why are you arguing he is pro-rape?

If you need “evidence” for that you are pro-paedophilia, a child cannot give consent to an adult in order to have sex, this is like an axiom of our society. He questioned that young lady’s testimony (Giuffre I think she is called) by saying: “the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing“. When you throw in a “plausible” just to whitewash your dead friend you are pro-rape. This…

You either lack reading comprehension or have an axe to grind. What he said (using more words) is that most probably she was coerced (by Epstein) to lie about her age. Is that not plausible? Is stating that being pro-rape? Is that statement pro-pedophilia?

It is just a statement accusing Epstein of coercion and lying in addition to pedophilia.

Was it tone deaf of Stallman to defend a dead man who was tangentially involved in this scandal? Sure. But it is disingenuous and evil of you to alter what Stallman said just so you can accuse him (and anyone defending him) of being a pedo.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#673

Post by dennisgorelik »

mcv wrote: post #363
coldtea wrote: post #76

Diversity -- but no diversity of opinion... Inclusiveness -- but let's ostracize the non-conforming aspie... Fairness -- but let's fire people or make them resign from unrelated positions for their personal opinions, because obviously all of a person's life should serve as a big PR, and god forbid they don't play the role 24/7. Someone might call them for it on Twitter, and what could their employee/organization do o…

It doesn't have anything to do with diversity of opinion or lack thereof. If this article is correct, the issue is simply a blatant misrepresentation of what Stallman said. I admit I haven't been following this news very well so far, so I'm doubtless missing some important facts. I'd heard Stallman was stepping down because of something he said about Minsky, but I have no idea what that was. If this is it, and this a…

> sex with an underage girl, it doesn't even matter whether she appeared willing or not; that's just wrong

These are very different levels of "wrong". Forced sex is much worse than consensual sex.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#674

Post by seebs »

mcv wrote: post #363
coldtea wrote: post #76

Diversity -- but no diversity of opinion... Inclusiveness -- but let's ostracize the non-conforming aspie... Fairness -- but let's fire people or make them resign from unrelated positions for their personal opinions, because obviously all of a person's life should serve as a big PR, and god forbid they don't play the role 24/7. Someone might call them for it on Twitter, and what could their employee/organization do o…

It doesn't have anything to do with diversity of opinion or lack thereof. If this article is correct, the issue is simply a blatant misrepresentation of what Stallman said. I admit I haven't been following this news very well so far, so I'm doubtless missing some important facts. I'd heard Stallman was stepping down because of something he said about Minsky, but I have no idea what that was. If this is it, and this a…

The original essay on Medium quoted him as saying that it was "most plausible" that the girl would have presented herself to Minsky as "entirely willing".

No basis is offered for why we should think this is "most plausible", except that Stallman likes Minsky and does not think it plausible that he did a bad thing.

There are some summaries which misrepresent what he said, but what he actually said was definitely something people could reasonably object to, especially given the longer context of him saying crazy stuff on related topics before.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#675

Post by seebs »

sergiosgc wrote: post #36
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…

> It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. Every episode I read about fell into the category of "socially awkward adult male". If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. By all means, point me to a real abuse scenario by Stallman. I like being prove…

The behavior I saw, with creepy-sounding jokes about how being molested by guards is desireable if the guards are cute and similar comments, was definitely beyond "socially awkward adult male".

There is also no reason that "male" should be a relevant qualifier.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#676

Post by sergiosgc »

seebs wrote: post #675
sergiosgc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. Every episode I read about fell into the category of "socially awkward adult male". If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. By all means, point me to a real abuse scenario by Stallman. I like being prove…

The behavior I saw, with creepy-sounding jokes about how being molested by guards is desireable if the guards are cute and similar comments, was definitely beyond "socially awkward adult male". There is also no reason that "male" should be a relevant qualifier.

As I referred afterwards on the thread (and should have done on the original comment), please refer to actual first-hand accounts. These kinds of stories tend to grow on each retelling.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#677

Post by seebs »

sergiosgc wrote: post #676
seebs wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behavior I saw, with creepy-sounding jokes about how being molested by guards is desireable if the guards are cute and similar comments, was definitely beyond "socially awkward adult male". There is also no reason that "male" should be a relevant qualifier.

As I referred afterwards on the thread (and should have done on the original comment), please refer to actual first-hand accounts. These kinds of stories tend to grow on each retelling.

The quote I saw was:

> OP: "CBP waved me through with hardly a word last week (TSA did grumble at me, for not moving fast enough through their fondling queue)." > > RMS: I generally ask, "Could I please be checked by a woman? It's not fair that only gays get to enjoy this."

I don't have a link, but I have not seen this one grow or change at all, everyone referring to it refers to the same thing.

And that one is pretty damn creepy.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#678

Post by pron »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #479
cambalache wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can mean for example, that having CP on your PC although highly immoral, should not be punished by law,reserving that fate for distributors and especially creators. This is an arbitrary distinction by law and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it. A similar argument is already in practice in many places where illegal drugs possession is not punished (u…

> and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it. I think this is the crux of the difference here. I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever. That's an absurd proposition to me. Maybe that's why I seem to be talking past people about this.

> nobody should face any consequence for having it.

Nobody ever faces any consequences for having any opinion, but many people very often face consequence for expressing some opinions, in some forums and under certain circumstances. For example, politician are commonly voted out of office, losing their job in the process, for expressing some opinions, and here in the UK even ordinary party members are commonly expelled for expressing some opinions. So even in free democracies, we accept and even expect certain consequences for voicing certain opinions, by certain people, in certain forums, and under certain circumstances. The decision of what those consequences are, and who, why and when they would face them is often made by a particular relevant institution. So it's a matter of degree, not of principle.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#679

Post by perakojotgenije »

FactolSarin wrote: post #434
TeMPOraL wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one agree 100% with you here. And I don't really know what angers me more - the explicit desire to destroy a person's life, expressed by many including the original blogger that started this mess, or the relentless denial of reality, the willingness to repeat bald-faced lies, even though the source material was accessible and widely quoted. Until this debacle I didn't realize so many people in our industry can…

I agree that based on this single email alone, it would be shocking for someone to be forced out. On the other hand, apparently RMS has had a long history of making women feel uncomfortable around him, and not taking "no" for an answer. I feel like this is probably something that's been building for a time, and this letter might have just been the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't that bad in and of itself…

I've met Stallman once. I'm a man, and he made me uncomfortable. Can we just stop saying that he was making women uncomfortable but instead say that he was making people uncomfortable because of his lack of social awareness (probably caused by his autism) and acknowledge that it is not a crime?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#680

Post by sergiosgc »

seebs wrote: post #677
sergiosgc wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I referred afterwards on the thread (and should have done on the original comment), please refer to actual first-hand accounts. These kinds of stories tend to grow on each retelling.

The quote I saw was: > OP: "CBP waved me through with hardly a word last week (TSA did grumble at me, for not moving fast enough through their fondling queue)." > > RMS: I generally ask, "Could I please be checked by a woman? It's not fair that only gays get to enjoy this." I don't have a link, but I have not seen this one grow or change at all, everyone referring to it refers to the same thing. And that one is prett…

That is obviously a joke. If that's the kind of stuff condemning Stallman, my point is proven.
Post reply on HN