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

Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

techrights.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 943 posts

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#91

Post by lawnchair_larry »

bigtones wrote: post #22
hYKdTfpa wrote: post #3

The attacks on him were dubious at best.

Are they.... here is a direct quote from him on a pro-pedophilia political party in 2006 that many that people took offence with: “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” https://thenextweb.com/dd/2019…

Sounds like he is trying to follow the science. Aren’t we all about that nowadays? His statement is perfectly reasonable.

Also, it’s extremely dishonest of you, and frankly a little contemptible, to keep smearing a man by taking this out of context and failing to also mention where he learned more about the issue and changed his views. This serves no other purpose than character assassination.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#92

Post by [deleted] »

konjin wrote: post #82
bigtones wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they.... here is a direct quote from him on a pro-pedophilia political party in 2006 that many that people took offence with: “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” https://thenextweb.com/dd/2019…

Odd that none of the teens Epstein slept with would be illegal to sleep with in Germany. Pedophilia is starting to mean 'sex I find icky' in the US.

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#93

Post by PurpleFoxy »

stonogo wrote: post #67
SilverRed wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a serious misrepresentation of his words. He once had a page on his site saying that he did not think it was harmful if voluntary (eg, consent between people of similar ages but one being over age) He has since removed the post and stated that its more complex than he initially thought.

He did not remove the post, it's here: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... And he didn't change his mind for over a decade, until he got in trouble for defending Marvin Minsky. I'm still not convinced his "updated opinion" would have happened without the scrutiny brought by the Epstein case.

Looks like he moved it to the archive section and dated it 2006 to show it is a very outdated view. Stallman is a very honest person and won’t try to hide the past.

This comment used to be on one of the main info pages of the site.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#94

Post by serf »

YorickPeterse wrote: post #16
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, maybe it was "hard to interact with him" only if one was unwilling to accept his difference?

This is just the same excuse as the age old "Boys will be boys" excuse. Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep and general unpleasant person to work with, without there eventually being repercussions.

not really.

'boys will be boys' doesn't assert that 'boys' get away with whatever they want because they are neuro-divergent, it asserts that gender allows for additional privilege.

>Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep

For the sake of argument : what if that person has neurological quirks which disallow 'non-creep' , to use your parlance, behavior?

To take the example even further , it's illegal with fine attached to say curse words on certain beaches in the United States. Is it reasonable to fine an individual with Tourette Syndrome when they scream expletives on such a beach?

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#95

Post by zeruch »

creamytaco wrote: post #34

Stallman is a bastion of software freedom in a world turning progressively dark. The fact that he never ever compromised his ideals and principles, never sold out and has been repeatedly proven prescient and absolutely on the money on countless issues, makes him someone that we should strive to protect. There are many invididuals in the Free Software world that backstabbed RMS and tried to destroy him with malicious…

Apologize for what? What in his statement should be apologize for? It's an op-ed that the author himself qualifies with a fairly clear sense of wat exists "on the ground" and his opinion about it, both positive and negative.

Frankly, Stallman has been a boat-anchor to his own cause more than much else for a while, and he is IMHO a vile little imp; his poor hygiene, both physical and emotional, and his chronic id-salving, went through their mileage before the current millennium started, let alone a few decades in.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#96

Post by mjg59 »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #73
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop. He argued that pedophilia was okay.

This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun them as well.

I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" as a suggestion that there are circumstances under which paedophilia is OK. Suggesting that someone doing so is willfully, blatantly lying seems like an unsupported claim.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#97

Post by subjectsigma »

nicklecompte wrote: post #33
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #8

I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…

There is absolutely zero evidence Stallman has autism, none whatsoever, and absolutely no evidence that he has any neurological disability. The fact that he once described himself as “borderline autistic” isn’t evidence of anything (except perhaps that Stallman is a jerk who doesn’t care about people who actually have autism). As someone who actually has schizophrenia and struggles with it in the workplace and in soc…

Its strange to me that you think RMS has to "prove" that he's autistic (and therefore deserving of sympathy) - but decades of activism and writing about progressive topics (workers rights, trans rights, ending discrimination, improving IP laws, etc) can get undone in a matter of days by anonymous and uncorroborated accusations, and that's totally fine.

You want him to get onstage with his therapist or something?

Look, I'm not exactly Stallman's biggest fan, but everything I read about his firing made it seem like the FSF had a knee-jerk reaction to bad publicity instead of hearing his side of the story and conducting a fair investigation. His reinstatement to the board seems to support the idea that the people there really did want him there but were scared of the mob.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#98

Post by ethbr0 »

nostrademons wrote: post #41
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #8

I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…

Ribbonfarm called this a couple years ago: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/06/a-quick-battle-field-g... Specifically battlefront #8. He calls it consequential because the the neurodivergent/PC conflict highlights an inherent paradox in the PC worldview. Most applications of political correctness focus (at least on the surface) on defending a marginalized group against the verbal attacks of a privileged one. When a…

Honestly asking, what's the difference between someone being neurodivergent and just thoughtless / mean / an ass?

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#99

Post by redis_mlc »

hntrader wrote: post #77
toiletfuneral wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah thats me, I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome' All the well meaning in the world doesn't mean shit if you're creating hostility or demeaning others (that is not commentary on RMS, just in general)

"I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome'" Accidentaly killing someone with your car is very different to negligent driving which causes death which is also very different to intentionally killing someone with your car. Clearly intent and context matters a lot.

> Clearly intent and context matters a lot.

This applies to old laws in the US, and not many other countries.

In France, you're guilty until proven innocent.

And in China (and many other regions governed by Chinese people), you're strictly liable regardless of intent.

And now in the US, most new laws do not consider intent, just strict liability.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#100

Post by Guthur »

mjg59 wrote: post #86
hntrader wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome'" Accidentaly killing someone with your car is very different to negligent driving which causes death which is also very different to intentionally killing someone with your car. Clearly intent and context matters a lot.

These are all different things, but the end result is that someone has been hit with a car. If your goal is to avoid people being hit with cars and someone keeps accidentally hitting people with their car, then you probably want to considering whether that person should be allowed to drive.

The causes are of different classification and require different responses.

When a cause is systemic it maybe with some natural variance and within what realistically deem acceptable, depending on where we set the bounds. While others maybe special cases and require detailed study to understand.

Blindly setting outcome goals without understanding the system is folly.

Post reply on HN