Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF • Hacker News Board

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

#701

Post by threepio » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:13 PM UTC

A mystifying and self-destructive decision by the FSF board.

The FSF board has always been overloaded with white guys. If it wants to assert its relevance for another generation, it's long past time to start bringing in fresh voices, and stop serving as a nostalgia platform.

What's going to happen in the next year or two is that Stallman is going to veer outside his lane again and say something even dumber. At that point, the entire FSF board is going to be on the hook for it, because they invited him back. That, in turn, is going to put the viability of the entire FSF into question.

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

#702

Post by jedimastert » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #330

nostrademons wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's like this, I've spent a lifetime learning a rulebook by trial and error that everyone else just seems to know . It's absolutely maddening when the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up. I see people clamoring for a safe spaces and I wonder where I can find such a thing? (To an extent I can find one at sci-fi, an…

I will once again say that this is why I don't have a Twitter

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

#703

Post by NationalPark » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #308

karaterobot wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wondering what the source is for Stallman being autistic? I see people saying he's autistic, and I even see people saying he has called himself "borderline autistic", but that's not quite the same thing as a diagnosis. I don't see a reliable source making that claim; even Wikipedia says nothing about it (except a backstage talk item about there not being any source on the claim). I admit, the circumstantial evid…

> Just wondering what the source is for Stallman being autistic? I see people saying he's autistic, and I even see people saying he has called himself "borderline autistic", but that's not quite the same thing as a diagnosis If you understand the concept of the broad autism phenotype (BAP), it is hard not to see it in his behaviour. He obviously has autistic traits. Now, is it BAP (sub-clinical ASD) or is it clinical…

If the line is that blurry, when do we begin holding people accountable for being apparently deliberately inconsiderate and rude? Most people don't have a problem with social cues, are we to quietly accept abuse and harassment even from people who have been told they're hurting others and don't change?

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

#704

Post by SamoyedFurFluff » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

temp8964 wrote: post #689

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would entirely agree but police also have a horrible track record when it comes to these things. The mob justice happens because the cops can’t be trusted to do justice, and haven’t been shown themselves worthy of that trust for generations when it comes to sexual assault. (Sometimes the cops themselves are the ones doing the assaulting!)

Yeah. Unless cops are all saints we should rely on mob justice.

For the record, I disagree with mob justice! I just also disagree that cops can be relied on right now for sexual assault cases. Currently, there is no real fair place for sexual assault victims to reliably receive real justice, and that is a tragedy in of itself.

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

#705

Post by IThoughtYouGNU » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

threepio wrote: post #701

A mystifying and self-destructive decision by the FSF board. The FSF board has always been overloaded with white guys. If it wants to assert its relevance for another generation, it's long past time to start bringing in fresh voices, and stop serving as a nostalgia platform. What's going to happen in the next year or two is that Stallman is going to veer outside his lane again and say something even dumber. At that p…

rms IS the FSF.

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

#706

Post by pseudalopex » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

r3856283 wrote: post #105

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…

But after someone read it they spoke to him about it and he realized he was wrong and published a correction right along side it and that was many years ago. You should have mentioned that. If he hadn't said it publicly, and only said it in private to people, that wouldn't have happened. Is that better? I don't think so. Free speech creates counter speech and changes people's minds.

He didn't retract anything until just before he resigned as far as I know.[1] The retraction wasn't right along side his earlier comments.[2][3] 6 years isn't many at his age. And he fixed a link without changing anything else just 1 year before.

Defend him if you want. But let's be accurate.

[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

[2] https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

[3] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...

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

#707

Post by DubiousPusher » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #631

yoz-y wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too wonder. One thing that I found quite interesting when moving to France was how casual everybody, even high school teachers, was with swearwords.

Not sure where you are from originally, but the US is fairly unique in the world when it comes to these things.

I'm getting on aside note on a side note already but this bumps into something I've been thinking about for days now so I can't resist.

I'm beginning to think the swearing thing in the U.S. has to do with a perception of the concept of "innocence". Because I've noticed a lot of people only begin to have a problem with swearing here when it involves children. For sure, there are people who are just generally against swearing for religious or etiquette reasons. However, having kids really seems to change a large number of people into prudes regarding swears.

I'll admit, when I first heard my 4 year old swear it was jarring. But I thought it through and was like, "my wife and I swear all the time, why can't the kid swear? I can either cave to this uncomfortable feeling or extend my kid the same privallege I extend myself."

At one point, my brother came to stay with us. He swears like a sailor yet when my kid swore, he was shocked. Not 10 minutes before he was cursing in front of the kid.

I also have friends who swore often when we were at college together and they started forbidding swears when they didn't like hearing it coming from their 3 year old.

American culture still has a partial obsession with virginity and the concept of innocence and my best guess is that this subconsciously extends to people's expectations for their children.

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

#708

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #541

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer, then, is to not try to judge people you don't know. If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them?

Who said anything about destroy? Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. And that's a pretty important distinction.

> Who said anything about destroy?

Some jerk named Twitter is my understanding.

> Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood.

I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This sorts itself out with any kind of long-term relationship because then you get to know them well enough to tell whether or not they're an ass.

But the first time you meet someone, it's prisoner's dilemma. Everybody defaulting to defect because you're afraid the other guy might be doing the same thing is not going to end well.

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

#709

Post by bitwize » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

cmiles74 wrote: post #661

mustafa_pasi wrote: post #427

Mob justice is not OK just because women do it. If these women have anything substantial they should make formal reports/complaints, not anonymous vogue statements like, "he make me feel uncomfortable". Cannot believe that one even has to say this. Why are women always presumed to be innocent and men always presumed to be guilty? Also, frankly, there is a point at which, certain behaviour might make you feel uncomfor…

I find it embarrassing that this is the top comment on this post. Not only is this comment mostly incoherent, it's pretty far from the facts at hand. These aren't hard to find, you can search Google or read the paragraph on Stallman's Wikipedia page.[0] Richard Stallman attempt to defend Marvin Minsky's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein was offensive. CNet[1] has a recap of the email thread (I believe Motherboard firs…

1) Stallman was attempting to morally distinguish sex with a minor who was being coerced by a third party with rape or assault. He wasn't saying that the former is right, only that it's less bad than the latter, and that the distinction is important. You can say "he shouldn't have approached such a radioactive topic" but the moral philosopher in Stallman compelled him to; not addressing it meant conceding defeat to people who conflate less bad actions with worse actions for their own gain. For example, to name one closer to Stallman's wheelhouse: conflating copyright infringement with theft. Or piracy. The very fact that sexual offenses are radioactive provides ample opportunity for information and context to be lost about the nature and severity of a deed, and this has dire real-world consequences for people. People end up on sex-offender registries for life for relatively innocuous offenses like peeing on the side of the road or being that weird kid who tried to kiss a girl in his elementary school class. Do you think the report of the offense will say "oh yeah, he was a weird kid who didn't know how to act appropriately around girls back in the fifth grade, but a talking to from the principal set him straight"? No, it will say "INDCNT ASSAULT, VICTIM UNDER 12". What do you think that means to anyone reading the report? Like a neighbor, landlord, or employer? That's why these moral distinctions are important.

2) At least two eyewitnesses, including Minsky's widow, claimed that Minsky turned down Epstein's girl. He only took money from Epstein back before it was widely known that Epstein was a perv. At what point do we say "let's not drag Minsky's name any further through the mud"? Should we disbelieve these accounts because #BelieveAllWomen? Should we assume that Minsky did in fact have sex with Epstein's girl because of a "context" in which Minsky's friends and associates are known, or thought, or assumed, to have done likewise? Should we adopt a Wikipedia-like standard of evidence wherein the abridged, quoted out of context, sometimes heavily distorted press accounts are considered more authoritative than reports from people who were there?

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

#710

Post by sseagull » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 3:16 PM UTC

elric wrote: post #473

gwd wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is consistently failing to do the necessary part of a job, then it doesn't matter why they are consistently failing; they must be asked to step down and not do that job. One of the responsibilities of anyone in power is to avoid emboldening sexual predators and silencing victims. Anyone in power who does that should be called out; and anyone who continues to do it after being called out should be asked to…

Age of consent is seriously tricky business. And I think that's in part because it's really two things which are muddled together: young people having sex with each other; and older people having sex with younger people. It is absolutely fine for young people to consent to having sex with other young people. A minimum age makes little sense there. Very young kids do stupid things all the time, including touching each…

> But once she turned 16, she was suddenly a pedophile and a stutory rapist because I was only 15? Again, that seems insane.

After some high-profile cases (usually involving minorities and disapproving parents), some states in the US have corrected this via "Romeo and Juliet Laws".

(Had to look into this due to having a bit younger girlfriend right around that age)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Julie...