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

Cancel We The Web? (2020)

wetheweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#51

Post by colanderman »

ggm wrote: post #2

Well worth reading. Lucid, clear. Didnt make me like Stallman more, but articulated some of the issues well. On the whole, I think the cancel/trigger thing has got out of hand. People need to be accountable for what they say, not what people believe they think.

Stallman clearly has issues as many have attested. But reading these specific excerpts of his now... they just read like tone-deaf pedantry. Sarah Mei's response to someone else who pointed this out in a leveled, non-confrontational manner, of

> That means you are also racist, misogynist, and a colonial apologist. Nice job

just comes off as needlessly toxic escalation intended to shut down dialogue.

I have several autistic friends and see this sort of interaction now and then. They will state some observation or make an argument rooted in logical pedantry, not pushing any political agenda (or, supporting certain politics but trying to cast it in a more logical framework). Someone takes offense at this and accuses them of being racist/misogynist/whatever. They are hurt. The conversation is not advanced. Both sides lose. Chalk it up to "normies" just... completely not understanding the autistic approach to the world I guess. I wish political activists were less reactive against those who just want to explore -- and ultimately strengthen -- ideas.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#52

Post by dralley »

ApicalDendrite wrote: post #28

Wasn't part of the issue with Stallman that his behavior, not just his ideas, were problematic. Like telling a college freshman that he'd kill himself if she didn't go out with him: https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/richard_stallmans_disgrac...

Yes. https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

(Above is a piece by someone who worked with RMS for years, explaining why it was not this one event that got him canned, but a long pattern of poor behavior, which he partially bore witness to)

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#53

Post by [deleted] »

duck wrote: post #29
donsupreme wrote: post #25

> Sarah Mei then went through the board members involved one by one, digging into each of their histories, and tweeting what she viewed as fire-worthy infractions. The crimes included: “being super involved with Wikipedia,” retweeting a “hideous” New York Times editorial, and being friendly with famed democracy activist and law professor Lawrence Lessig. Publicly calling out each board member in turn with a clear imp…

Here is the thread in question: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1172283772428906496.html

[deleted]

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#54

Post by mdoms »

duck wrote: post #29
donsupreme wrote: post #25

> Sarah Mei then went through the board members involved one by one, digging into each of their histories, and tweeting what she viewed as fire-worthy infractions. The crimes included: “being super involved with Wikipedia,” retweeting a “hideous” New York Times editorial, and being friendly with famed democracy activist and law professor Lawrence Lessig. Publicly calling out each board member in turn with a clear imp…

Here is the thread in question: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1172283772428906496.html

This is hideous. We should not let people like this dictate the direction of our industry.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#55

Post by [deleted] »

innagadadavida wrote: post #43
duck wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the thread in question: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1172283772428906496.html

Has anyone done any investigations whether she had a profit motive doing what she did? Did she get paid by someone? Did she just do it out of spite to RMS? Or just to get plain attention?

[deleted]

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#56

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

smt88 wrote: post #22
chrisco255 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nadine's point was that people should not be unduly punished for making intellectual arguments for or against anything. "Being punished for what they say" is precisely what happened to Stallman.

If Nadine means this absolutely, she opens herself up to easy counterpoints in the extreme. Ex: What if I work at a hospital and make an intellectual argument in favor of eugenics? What if I have Jewish coworkers and publish statistics about the percentage of media executives that are Jewish? In these cases, "punishment" may also just mean that you've made people unwilling to collaborate with you, or you've done some…

This argument doesn't seem applicable to Stallman, since his problematic arguments had nothing to do with his work, and since many people were willing to collaborate with him. The argument against him seemed to be that it's wrong, "exclusionary", to have a community figure who anyone finds too offensive to collaborate with, even if the community members are largely okay with him.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#57

Post by Clewza313 »

klodolph wrote: post #38
r3trohack3r wrote: post #6

A different take: Microsoft, Oracle, et. al. waged a war against OSS in the 90s. They went as far as using mental illness as a weapon against the community (equating participation in the commons as an equivalent to mental illness). It’s not a coincidence the class of human that weathered the storm looks like Stallman, Linus, ESR, et. al. That’s what it took. The toxicity in these communities is a result of what was l…

I think that this is just an attempt at explaining away toxic behavior without taking responsibility for it. People in the OSS community can, at times, glorify toxic behavior. I know people who take it as a badge of honor to "speak the truth", "speak directly", or "have no filter". Speaking directly and speaking the truth are good ideals to have, but if you really want to PROVE that you speak the truth and don't fear…

So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#58

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #8

>Progressives are right now advocating for the release of criminals, even murderers. To then have exactly the opposite attitude towards something that certainly is not committing physical violence against somebody, I don’t understand the double standard! Barabbas understood.

Once again, brevity is the soul of wit. Well played.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#59

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

> Sarah Mei then went through the board members involved one by one, digging into each of their histories, and tweeting what she viewed as fire-worthy infractions.

What a [negative adjective removed at moderator's request] human being. Worst of all, she probably views her activity as a worthy contribution to society.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#60

Post by kstenerud »

ApicalDendrite wrote: post #28

Wasn't part of the issue with Stallman that his behavior, not just his ideas, were problematic. Like telling a college freshman that he'd kill himself if she didn't go out with him: https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/richard_stallmans_disgrac...

Actually, it just comes off as ex-post-facto rationalization of doing something hasty and mean.
Post reply on HN