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

841–850 of 943 posts

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

#841

Post by kelnos »

sellyme wrote: post #383
kelnos wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's kinda the thing. If something was in one of those history courses, then they were important enough that it mattered. Playing into the Santa Claus lie with your friend's kid is absolutely inconsequential to you, but it could mean a lot to that kid (and to the parents) to keep that lie alive a bit longer. (And if telling the truth to that kid, against what the parents would wish, is that important to you,…

> But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. Why is the desire of the parents more important than the desire of the child? Remember that we're talking about a scenario where the child is explicitly asking. They want you to tell the truth, their parents want you to perpetuate a…

Because we as a society have decided that children are not capable of making informed decisions, so parents get to decide for them on many/most/all things (the number of which tends to decrease with age, zeroing out at 18 or whatever the local age of majority is). You may not agree with that state of affairs, but that is the reality of the situation.

You may not see the useful function of the Santa Claus fantasy[0], but it is not your (or my) place to decide that for a child or their parents.

Let's try with something a bit less trivial, something that my young nephew had to deal with not too long ago: death. One day kid realizes that grandpa hasn't visited in a long while, and ask parent what's up. Parents don't think kid is emotionally ready to have the death talk. So they spin a story about grandpa having to move away, and how grandpa loves his grandkid very much, but won't be able to visit anymore. And let's say you're over visiting your friend, and their kid walks up to you and says "my grandpa had to move far away and I miss him... do you know why he can't visit me?" You know that your friend's father died recently. If your answer isn't "well, what did your parents say?" followed by affirming whatever the answer is, you've probably done a bit of harm to that child's emotional well being, and likely have introduced some trust issues between the child and parents. What right do you have to do that? I would not be surprised if your friend stops inviting you over after that.

Don't get me wrong; I think many decisions parents make for their kids probably aren't the best ones. There's no authoritative parenting handbook, and most parents do the best they can. But it is not anyone else's place to "correct" someone's parenting decisions, outside of active harm and neglect. (And no, telling a lie about Santa Claus or death does not clear that bar.)

[0] Personally I'm not a big fan of it myself; while Santa Claus can be a useful tool to help a child's imagination develop, I really dislike how tied Christmas has become to consumer culture and materialism.

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

#842

Post by lawnchair_larry »

roflc0ptic wrote: post #410
novok wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autistic MtF programmers is something that happens enough to be a trope, joke or meme.

No citation in this, but being trans correlates with being autistic

The truth is more tragic. Being autistic correlates with being falsely convinced that your problem is that you’re trans.

https://nationalpost.com/health/are-autistic-children-more-l...

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

#843

Post by restalis »

Aloha wrote: post #765
sterlind wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea why it happened, I'm just so grateful it did. It was like suddenly seeing color for the first time. When I looked at someone, I could read their intentions and actually feel their feelings. I wasn't a sociopath before or anything, but I couldn't feel empathy. This definitely does not happen to every aspie trans woman, but I've heard of it happening to one or two others. I was worried about losing my in…

The only thing ASD gives me is a measure of clarity - because all of the hidden rules of society are not hidden to me, they're things I need to learn with intent, it gives me a measure of clarity into which rules are required, and which ones are not, when they can be broken and when they can't be. I'm not gonna say I'd like to be normal, because I have no real construct of what normal would be like - but ASD also giv…

"all humans are some measure of weird, its just a question of how much, and in what way"

This is true. However, from a similar (mild form, partially dealt with) ASD observer point of view, I also noticed that the said peculiarities in one's character are like food ingredients. It's about the way one manages to blend them in a recipe and to cook them into something tasteful (for others) that makes or breaks the social connections. Having ASD is like having no smell or taste of your own and you have to rely on the observed reactions in others for measurements. Obviously, it's a challenge to be a cook in such circumstance and the best strategy (if you care) then probably is just to assume damage and operate in damage control mode all the time.

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

#844

Post by lawnchair_larry »

owl57 wrote: post #474
roflc0ptic wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No citation in this, but being trans correlates with being autistic

Would seem logical. I was alien enough to boys to land at the "girls table" in school canteen when I was 11. Pieces of experience like this could probably help to start considering the possibility.

This is an extremely dangerous and absolutely insane line of reasoning that is causing incredible harm to young people. You don’t have gender dysphoria because you hung out with girls as an 11 year old.

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

#845

Post by eyelidlessness »

Noos wrote: post #392
eyelidlessness wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re honestly asking, it’s a rude question as stated. But if you’re sincerely admitting you don’t understand the difference, the difference is this: Many people (including myself) have difficulty with certain social cues and expectations. Many of us can be offputting or come off as overly direct or disrespectful. Where we diverge is when and how we address that fact. Do we (only) lash out and expect the world to…

To be blunt, I think a lot of people here misuse autism. The autistic person I had to deal with a lot of times had "difficulty" with social cues in that he was an adult that had no idea of not standing by others when they were working, would endlessly repeat things, was more or less impossible to hold a conversation with, etc. We more or less had to babysit him as impromptu caretakers. It isn't "oh, I don't know how…

Full disclosure: I’m not yet diagnosed ASD, but I have pretty high confidence I will be. The only reason I haven’t pursued it sooner is that the point I acknowledged not just the possibility but the importance of knowing was around the same point I was no longer able to continue at my last job, which was six months ago. So I don’t currently have the resources (insurance) to look further.

That said, while I’m not an expert on the topic, some of the way you responded is right in line with what I’ve seen people with diagnoses express as harmful. I’m sure you mean well, but ASD presents in a lot of ways. Many which are not nearly so debilitating as what you describe, or more to the point, not debilitating in the same ways. The fact that it’s such a common misconception that it is so debilitating across the board is stigmatic.

I haven’t experienced this disability chic, what I’ve seen is the opposite: people afraid to find out because it may be socially limiting beyond their natural limits.

It’s possible that what you see here is a reflection of high incidence of what you call “high function” but nevertheless also a high incidence of ASD in tech communities.

I hope you’ll consider the possibility. I hope you’ll also consider that it took me a full day to work up the nerve to address your response, and honestly it’s such a sensitive subject that I’m probably going to have to stop looking at my phone for the night because I can’t bear whatever potential negative reaction might be coming. But I couldn’t bear leaving it unanswered even more.

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

#846

Post by skissane »

kmeisthax wrote: post #731
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…

The thing to note is that the worldview of social justice advocates is not "advocate for all oppressed groups", it's "advocate for all oppressed groups up to intersectionality ". At least in America, we used to go through phases of, say, black power groups being kinda sexist, and women's liberation movements being hella racist. This poses a unique opportunity for people who oppose both: just use one to harm the other…

> 1. The people reacting to these rules are neurotypical

How do you know that everyone who disagrees with the "speech rules" of the "social justice left" is "neurotypical"?

I think "aneurotypical" people (whether ADHD or ASD or whatever) are just as capable of having a wide variety of different political views as "neurotypical" people are. Take any current political or social question, you are going to have a wide diversity of opinion about it, and I don't see why people with ASD/ADHD/etc would have any less viewpoint diversity than society as a whole does. (If anything, people with ASD might have more viewpoint diversity than average, due to putting less value on social conformity leading to a greater willingness to consider and even espouse unpopular opinions.)

> it's that the social justice left is autistic

I really doubt that. Possibly, people with ASD are over-represented on the "social justice left". (I've heard the same claim made about the "alt-right" – although the two claims are not mutually exclusive). But I think the clear majority people on the "social justice left" don't have ASD, and conversely a lot of people with ASD don't identify with the "social justice left".

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

#847

Post by sellyme »

kelnos wrote: post #841
sellyme wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. Why is the desire of the parents more important than the desire of the child? Remember that we're talking about a scenario where the child is explicitly asking. They want you to tell the truth, their parents want you to perpetuate a…

Because we as a society have decided that children are not capable of making informed decisions, so parents get to decide for them on many/most/all things (the number of which tends to decrease with age, zeroing out at 18 or whatever the local age of majority is). You may not agree with that state of affairs, but that is the reality of the situation. You may not see the useful function of the Santa Claus fantasy[0],…

> and likely have introduced some trust issues between the child and parents.

I couldn't help but laugh at this.

If you want to avoid trust issues, maybe don't lie to people. Seems like an easier solution than lying to them and calling other people assholes if they don't perpetuate your lies.

> What right do you have to do that?

There is a conversation occurring between two people. One of them asks a question. Both parties in this conversation want the question to be answered truthfully.

You are saying that I don't have the right to do so because someone who is not involved in said conversation wants me to lie instead. This is insane.

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

#848

Post by ddingus »

detaro wrote: post #835
ddingus wrote: post #828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS literally created the thing. Others can and should be doing active, mass outreach. Leader does not have to mean public figure. Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard. Maybe the right thing to do here is firm up a 5 year plan, go on a donation drive and fund organizers, who can work the crowds.

I'd not bet anything on the FSF being capable or even just willing to commit to anything like that and seeing it through without sabotaging it or cancelling it because it stepped on someones toes internally. They do not appear to have a culture that would permit doing so, but rather one of focusing to much on backing RMS and driving people who might succeed at new ways of doing outreach away. Even if they didn't have…

I didn't say no public presence.

What I did suggest what's a standard effort well-trodden ground to go out and do the public advocacy and Outreach.

And in terms of the ideas the leadership and all of that, I put that in my first comment. I sincerely hope people can keep the focus on the ideas.

Regarding the rest of your comments, they're valid, and solidarity on ideas is hard.

Software Freedom really matters to me. I'm willing to act with others to advance those ideas. I don't have to like some of the people all that much. Neither does anybody else.

And if we map this stuff onto well known politics, political organizing activities, what we've got here is a fight on our hands.

There's an awful lot of money very interested in letting some of these ideas prevail and the really important ones fall by the wayside or be co-opted.

Looking around at our side, the software freedom side, it looks kind of grim. We've got work to do.

And frankly, if enough of us don't prioritize this, do not value it highly, that work won't get done, these ideas die.

All of that is why I could give two shits who is likable or not. What I want to know is who's behind the ideas, who believes in them, who's willing to do work, and what that means, and how I can help.

And on that note, speaking of leadership, those are the things that need solid answers. Or, again, these ideas die.

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

#849

Post by mjg59 »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #837
mjg59 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under what circumstances is something that does no harm not ok?

Feel free to quote or link the passage where he says it does no harm. If you cannot find one, you’ll issue an apology to RMS for falsely defaming him, right? That’s what it’s called when you claim someone says pedophilia does no harm when they didn’t say that.

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" - if it's not harming children, who or what is it harming?

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

#850

Post by RangerNS »

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.

They don't call them "on purposes". Intent and context do matter.

On the other hand, if a driver consistently has accidents and people end up dead, it could be that they are a bad driver and shouldn't be in a position to, you know, drive.

Post reply on HN