On Recent Controversial Events • Hacker News Board

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#71

Post by trothamel » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

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…

"organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders"

Musing out loud here, the question is if an organization elevates its founder. It almost seems like it's the other way around - the founder elevates the organization. If we prevent people from founding organizations at all, will the organizations be founded by people with more acceptable views? Or not founded at all?

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#72

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#73

Post by jccooper » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

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…

While "don't be a distraction" is a reasonable principal, Stallman's problem here is clearly that he got on the wrong side of a single issue. He's constantly going on about how language and/or the world is technically incorrect on a battery of controversial issues, like abortion, race, the justice system, economic systems, climate change, etc, and not in a particularly different way. And no one cared as long as he was on the "correct side".

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#74

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:17 AM UTC

QualityReboot wrote: post #68

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…

Society seems to be settling in on global norms due to the rise of social media. The more engaged you are with it, the more you know what's cancelled and what's trending. > Just pray you don't speak against mob or they'll cancel you. I think the prudent strategy is to understand what's being cancelled today and make sure you're on the right side of it. It's really pretty easy to do just by reading HN. Just know that…

> If you have views that disgust the mob, you're going to end up like RMS.

Reading through those posts, is there any group in America that wouldn’t be angered by at least one of those posts?

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#75

Post by throwaway13337 » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This is understood as the principle of freedom of speech.

We don't get that if you risk losing your job if you don't share every view of the majority.

The principle should be well understood by an organization that stands for, above all, these sorts of freedoms.

There is no freedom of speech left if you're only able to say what everyone agrees with.

When did we lose sight of this?

This posturing is shameful.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#76

Post by skybrian » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:19 AM UTC

herostratus101 wrote: post #61

skybrian wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 apparentl…

This argument seems to assume that the media is a fair and impartial arbiter of acceptable opinion, which is a fairly controversial stance.

Fairness has little to do with it. It's almost maximally unfair, since people often get more attention because they're already famous, or they get it randomly for almost no reason.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#77

Post by ddiq » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:21 AM UTC

herostratus101 wrote: post #57

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…

Or imagine a CEO saying "there isn't authoritative evidence that racial diversity would benefit our company, and bringing race into hiring decisions is inherently discriminatory." At least 40% of the country more-or-less agrees with that position, but basically any CEO would lose their job for saying it. While publicly supporting racial discrimination in favor of underrepresented groups is almost mandatory.

No CEO would say this, even if they thought it, because it could be used in evidence in a diversity lawsuit under the 80% rule of diverse impact, because the CEO was intentionally using neutral rules of hiring that ended in "discriminatory" results.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#78

Post by reggieband » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

> However, we do not need to follow leadership from those whose views we fundamentally disagree.

I hesitate to bring up Trump in this context but I know many wish they didn't have to follow a man who casually joked about sexual assault. Yet Americans do have to follow Trump on matters of law related to his office as President, like it or not.

> [...] 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 agree on "need not" but disagree on "should not".

Just because Kuhn chooses to keep his public persona free from conflicts with his personal commitments to organizations does not mean anyone else must as well. Nor does his belief that he is doing something worthwhile mean it is a universal moral law. I appreciate his integrity but I do not consider it a requirement for leadership of software advocacy organizations.

I find it troubling that a common tactic when someone disagrees with someone else is they want to ruin them. They want them de-platformed and unemployable. It isn't enough to combat their ideas with better ideas, they need them to go away permanently. I would have preferred both Kuhn and RMS to stay on the FSF and engage in a public healthy debate.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#79

Post by mrkurt » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

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…

If RMS had said "diversity is important but not our only goal", there wouldn't be any FSF drama. He didn't say that.

His comments are the wrong comments to defend, I think, for reasons adequately explained in the article. Minimizing the harm powerful people have caused to their victims is not "dissent" we should avoid stifling.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#80

Post by wwarner » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:23 AM UTC

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…

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please tell me how taking a controversial position on sex advances the cause of software freedom. The free software movement isn't about providing a platform for people to discuss their sex lives.

Imagine you're in court, say you've been charged with something extremely serious and you're completely innocent. Your lawyer decides to argue your case by referring bitterly to a different, utterly hopeless case that he's losing. You wouldn't cheer him on for exercising his right to free speech -- you'd fire him and get an attorney that knew how to focus attention on a persuasive argument.