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

111–120 of 151 posts

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#111

Post by mthoms »

humanrebar wrote: post #105
mthoms wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His freedom of speech hasn't been hindered in any way, shape, or form (as far as I can tell). What I do see, is others utilizing their right to (dis)associate with whomever they want. Freedom of speech has never included any notion of "Freedom from societal repercussions".

"Freedom of speech" is a universal principle that is also crystallized in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with respect to government suppression of private speech. It's also important that the principle be applied in private interactions, weighing other considerations. Of course, a political diatribe at a funeral is a poor choice. But there need to be places for well intentioned and civil people to come…

Well said. I agree completely.

The question I would ask next though, is whether RMS is well intentioned, humble and aware of his own capability to be ignorant? I don't have a strong opinion, but there does appear to be a long history of behaviours and musings which suggest he isn't.

I'm not saying he deserves to be a social pariah. But it seems reasonable for the FSF to want to disassociate with him.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#112

Post by ddiq »

gnicholas wrote: post #104
ddiq wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> because the CEO was intentionally using neutral rules of hiring that ended in "discriminatory" results. Against what baseline? The results are only discriminatory against a baseline in which affirmative action is baked in. But this can't be the proper baseline, because if it is then any amount of affirmative action can be called into question. Does your company practice some affirmative action? That has a disparate…

You can read more about the baseline known as the 80% rule here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#The_80%_rule

Since the onus is on the employer to prove that they had a legitimate reason for this disparate impact, often these cases end in settlement.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#113

Post by mthoms »

humanrebar wrote: post #107
mthoms wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind He's absolutely free to speak his mind. Similarly, people and organizations are free to disassociate with him if they find his opinions offensive (or even just distracting).

You miss the argument. The question isn't whether people should have the freedom to disassociate. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way.

The parent seemed (here and elsewhere) to argue that RMS was having his freedom of speech hindered vis-a-vis the fact that people were disassociating with him. Further arguing that RMS should be able to say anything he wants as long as he's honest (paraphrased).

I only argued about freedom of association to counter that simplistic thinking. That is, yes it's your right to say whatever you want, but it's my right to disassociate from you if I don't like what you're saying.

> The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way

I agree whole-heartedly with this more nuanced take on it. In a round-about way, that was kind of my point - That the matter is not as simple as being able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and not have repercussions.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#114

Post by neumann »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #95
wwarner wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with RMS?

Nothing. If you go back and read my first post, it's only about using what happened here to talk about a broader issue. I don't even like RMS My point is eloquently summarized by someone else here: "I guess free speech still exists in non-controversial matters, and for people who don't have to worry about employment."

you still have free speech - what you don't have is immunity to real world consequences if your views are so far out of whack with social norms regarding exploitation of vulnerable groups (eg. underage kids) that your coworkers and colleagues do not wish you to be representative of their organisation or their leader.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

lisp-missionary wrote: post #59
rmtech wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, it's clear that he has some unorthodox views, though all of them are backed by a degree of logic that most people don't apply to these things. I wouldn't personally touch any of these topics. Too controversial, no gain. But I can't really fault his logic. Of course, social and sexual morality runs on feelings rather than logic, and perhaps that's what RMS doesn't get!

I think what Stallman doesn't get is the same thing that I don't get, why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind. What makes other people's feelings or even thoughts so much more important that action should be taken against him if he's honest about what he thinks. By the way, some of the comments he's being demonized for wo…

> I think what Stallman doesn't get is the same thing that I don't get, why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind.

He doesn't have to be.

Of course, equally, they don't need to at all be concerned with his thoughts or feelings when exercising their rights, either.

Now, if he wants them to give favorable consideration to him when exercising their freedoms, well...

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#116

Post by neumann »

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…

Of course people are allowed to have opinions or interests. AFAIK nobody has said you can't. He was also not fired, but resigned.

People in prominent positions have visibility and platform that elevates their voice as well as tacitly tieing their declared opinions to the organizations they represent. That is just how societies operate. You can rationalize that it shouldn't be like that, but it always has been and always will be and it is surprising that people are seemingly shocked or offended by this.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#117

Post by neumann »

ng12 wrote: post #103
XorNot wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, how? He hasn't been silenced. He still has internet access and the many publishing platforms that affords him. He's been dissociated from a role in an organization. If his ideas so clearly stand on their own, then he should have no problems. What he will not be doing anymore is acting as a direct representative of the organization.

Well I'm sure part of it is that he's been unjustly branded as a pedophile. Also I doubt he cherishes the prospect of starting FSF Round 2.

I haven't seen him branded as a pedophile. I'll happily brand him as a former pedophile apologist, and have yet to read anything that suggests he has renounced those views explicitly.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#118

Post by gnicholas »

ddiq wrote: post #112
gnicholas wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the CEO was intentionally using neutral rules of hiring that ended in "discriminatory" results. Against what baseline? The results are only discriminatory against a baseline in which affirmative action is baked in. But this can't be the proper baseline, because if it is then any amount of affirmative action can be called into question. Does your company practice some affirmative action? That has a disparate…

You can read more about the baseline known as the 80% rule here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#The_80%_rule Since the onus is on the employer to prove that they had a legitimate reason for this disparate impact, often these cases end in settlement.

Sure, if the employer separately has disparate impact problems, they could be in trouble based on those numbers. But merely saying that you do not practice affirmative action does not create additional legal problems.

I'm sure many of these cases end in settlement — 90% of all cases do. And yeah, it's not a great idea to go around saying stuff that will inflame people. But saying something that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has said ("The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race") would not be great ammunition for a plaintiff.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#119

Post by ixtli »

incompatible wrote: post #70
mantap wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just don't use your real name. You can post any controversial opinion you like on the internet but don't tie it back to your real identity if you don't want real world consequences. The internet is still a massive improvement to freedom of speech.

Anonymous speech is always the last refuge of freedom of speech. You can have that anywhere, it doesn't require a "free country".

thats observably not the case: countries where the government is unopposed in speech censorship do it pretty well. the only way people can engage in speech banned by the authorities is to do so on platforms run by countries who dont care about what they want to say

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#120

Post by ixtli »

new_realist wrote: post #65
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 has enforced social norms since as long as society has existed.

every time this issue gets discussed on HN the comments are filled with these weird implications that facebook invented the court of public opinion.
Post reply on HN