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

On Recent Controversial Events

ebb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#41

Post by wmf »

breck wrote: post #36
haberman wrote: post #33

> organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders who speak regularly on unrelated issues that organizations find do not advance their mission, and/or that alienate important constituents. I, like many other software freedom leaders, curtail my public comments on issues not related to FOSS. (Indeed, I would not even be commenting on this issue if it had not become a central issue of concern to…

Is this a good pattern though? Seems to me like a low standard for our leaders. You should be able to do more than one thing at once.

It's not really about leaders at all but about the public and press who will listen to and amplify anything leaders say even if it's off-topic bullshit.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#43

Post by vkou »

pmichaud wrote: post #29
ng12 wrote: post #10

> The question is whether an organization should have a designated leader who is on a sustained, public campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that many consider controversial. I don't understand this. Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? As long as RMS wasn't actively using his power/influence as head of the FSF to advance his odd-ball views I really…

Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? That is basically correct.

You're allowed to have interests outside of your job, but most workplaces expect you to leave them aside, and focus on doing WORK at work.

If your job involves being a public speaker, who is 'on' 24/7, then that's what you have to deal with. You're always free to pursue flipping burgers, or fixing cars, where you only need to be focused on work for 40 hours a week.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#45

Post by skybrian »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #37

> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from .... I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today. Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side…

This isn't new and it's a consequence of how publicity works. Some views make the news and others don't, depending on how outside the mainstream they are. Public figures are judged by all their attention-getting views.

Maybe it doesn't matter too much if nobody knows who you are, but it's why some authors write under pen names. (Back when the U.S. was founded, writing for newspapers using your real name was apparently pretty rare.)

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#46

Post by danso »

ng12 wrote: post #10

> The question is whether an organization should have a designated leader who is on a sustained, public campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that many consider controversial. I don't understand this. Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? As long as RMS wasn't actively using his power/influence as head of the FSF to advance his odd-ball views I really…

Because of their public-facing role and influence, whatever opinions and interests they express while in that spotlight will widely be interpreted, fairly or not, as being implicitly endorsed by the institution they represent. That's a tradeoff of being someone whose actions and decisions profoundly affect and direct the work of everyone in the institution.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#47

Post by krapp »

breck wrote: post #36
haberman wrote: post #33

> organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders who speak regularly on unrelated issues that organizations find do not advance their mission, and/or that alienate important constituents. I, like many other software freedom leaders, curtail my public comments on issues not related to FOSS. (Indeed, I would not even be commenting on this issue if it had not become a central issue of concern to…

Is this a good pattern though? Seems to me like a low standard for our leaders. You should be able to do more than one thing at once.

>You should be able to do more than one thing at once.

Depends on the things.

Remain President and play golf? Sure.

Remain a spokesman for free software and repeatedly and publicly expound on your belief that pedophilia isn't harmful, and that children are capable of sexual consent? Yes, apparently.

That, and then toss a match on the PR tinderbox that is MIT's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein with a tediously legalistic argument over the definition of sexual assault which appears to the rest of the world to be an attempt to defend Marvin Minsky's alleged involvement in child sex trafficking? No. Turns out that's the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#48

Post by grubland4322 »

bsder wrote: post #40
ng12 wrote: post #10

> The question is whether an organization should have a designated leader who is on a sustained, public campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that many consider controversial. I don't understand this. Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? As long as RMS wasn't actively using his power/influence as head of the FSF to advance his odd-ball views I really…

> As long as RMS wasn't actively using his power/influence as head of the FSF to advance his odd-ball views I really don't see what the problem is. Let me reverse that, if Stallman weren't heading up the FSF, would anyone give one iota of damn about his other oddball views? Of course not. They would dismiss him as a nobody.

I think you have it totally backwards. Would anyone give a damn what the FSF said if RMS hadn't been its leader for 30 years? I sure wouldn't. The FSF has put the personal political goals of some of its members ahead of free software. Stallman would never, and has never done that.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#50

Post by Smithalicious »

mistermann wrote: post #4

> In fact, RMS' views and statements posted on stallman.org about sexual morality escalated for the worse over the last few years. Each word is a linked to a comment, some of them fairly eye opening.

Most of it is just rephrasing of the same few comments, which are mostly semantic arguments such as "a 17 year old isn't really a" child". This may be evidence of him holding "problematic" views, but it's no campaign.
Post reply on HN