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

#871

Post by roenxi » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #750

roenxi wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say he agreed with it. He said "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children." There is a wide gap between being sceptical of a claim, and supporting its negation. Anyone who is applying critical thinking will occasionally be sceptical of things which are obviously correct. People were sceptical of the wheel. People have been sceptical of money since the creation of money. People w…

He dismissed opposition to it as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing". And he said it's "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] The article says what most people would call the age of consent in Brazil is 14. [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20... ()

Stallman routinely misjudging what other people are thinking and why they are acting is not a matter of debate. Everyone agrees that he is bad at that. Terrible, even.

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

#872

Post by schwartzworld » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 9:58 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #197

wmf wrote: post #108

For those who do not know RMS personally: "I worked for RMS longer than any other programmer. ... This was an own-goal for RMS. He has had plenty of opportunities to learn how to stfu when that’s necessary. ... I can confirm the unfortunate reality that RMS’s behavior was a concern [in the 1990s], and that [Marvin Minsky's] protection was itself part of the problem. He was never held to account; he was himself coddle…

>and that [Marvin Minsky's] protection was itself part of the problem So if your friend was accused of heinous crime, the right thing to do is to distance yourself as far as possible?

The right thing to do is keep controversial opinions to yourself at work, especially when you're in a position of authority or public facing work.

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

#873

Post by schwartzworld » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 10:07 AM UTC

joana035 wrote: post #516

cmeacham98 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this is relevant _at all_ to the linked article. You seem to be taking existing arguments that aren't even related to RMS's case and arguing against a strawman of an extreme version of them. No "mob justice" happened here. No women came forward and said RMS "hit on them" or whatever. RMS faced criticism for comments which justified rape and were close to victim blaming, and willingly resigned from his…

As a woman who, at my 16 was able to fool many men in selling me alcohol and nicotine, was able to interpret RMS arguments properly. It's a shame that his words are being twisted once again after everything he went through.

On the other hand, I had no trouble convincing people to buy me booze and smokes either, only I was a fat ugly boy

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

#874

Post by account42 » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 10:22 AM UTC

zeruch wrote: post #102

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…

It's not just neurodivergence, but its that he recognizes where he jabs people and pretty much admits he doesn't care. I once had this conversation about with with ESR and I remember him saying "RMS doesn't care about the 'social overhead' of most person to person interactions" and so he kind of does his own normative preferences, thinking that because he finds them ideal, that others shouldn't be offended....but the…

> I've listened to him be rude to former co-workers (one seemingly on the basis that she was a woman in a technical role)

Care to back that accusation up with anything?

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

#875

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 10:35 AM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #855

pseudalopex wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman said pedophilia is "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] He must have meant the act because the paraphilia isn't illegal. He dismissed people who believe children can't consent as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing".[2] He didn't mean adolescents.[3] Having sex with a child is an offense in most countries.[4] Offender means someone who commits an…

You have ignored and omitted context from each of the statements you linked above. And so I can only assume you're not posting in good faith. That's sad, as it's something I really like about HN. I had responded in detail to each of the claims you made and expounded on the fact that age of consent is wildly different in all those countries you mention. Sadly, it was all lost with a -w[1] in Firefox. In fact, in 20 US…

I'm not trying to convince you. You already said no one could reach a different conclusion in good faith. I linked Stallman's comments so other people can decide for themselves.

Maybe you don't like I only mentioned in passing Stallman said anything about consent. But it's irrelevant to the claim he didn't advocate pedophilia. And now he understands why people say children can't consent.[1]

Your source says 20 states have no minimum age "with a parental or judicial waiver". You left out that detail. The minimum age without a waiver is 18 or over in all states.[2] Wikipedia's source says only 13 states don't have a statutory minimum age. And at least 1 of them has a minimum age through case law.[3]

This usually affects but doesn't necessarily eliminate the age of consent. California has a law against "any lewd or lascivious act" with a child under 14 for example. Spouses aren't exempt.[4]

I didn't mention any countries. But Wikipedia listed only 4 countries with a general age of consent below 13. So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta...

[3] https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-Sta...

[4] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

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

#876

Post by hulahoof » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 10:40 AM UTC

veridies wrote: post #666

hmpiece wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the woke are nearly always lying in cancel cases (at the very least by omission, often directly) and engaging in blatant defamation. Many cases could be taken to court, even in the USA with its relaxed defamation laws.

Then why aren't they, more often?

Most people probably can't afford to unless it's a slam dunk

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

#877

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 11:03 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #871

pseudalopex wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He dismissed opposition to it as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing". And he said it's "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] The article says what most people would call the age of consent in Brazil is 14. [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20... ()

Stallman routinely misjudging what other people are thinking and why they are acting is not a matter of debate. Everyone agrees that he is bad at that. Terrible, even.

Mocking anyone who opposes something goes beyond skepticism. So does saying people oppose something "only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".

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

#878

Post by TulliusCicero » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 11:08 AM UTC

sterlind wrote: post #758

exikyut wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wh...a. Transitioning fixed your social cue perception?! That is incredibly fascinating. I'm not even sure how to classify that... pragmatic psychological function (oookay that's probably not a thing), neurobiology, or what else. IMO this is a gigantic breadcrumb for Something™. The question is what the axis point was, and what got fixed as a result. Cooool. I am very curious what else shifted that you'd be happy to…

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…

So, stereotypically, women are more socially aware than men. Personally, this is something I've definitely noticed strongly with boys vs girls, even from a young age the girls seem to be more aware of others around them and their emotional state, whereas the boys usually seem more oblivious (on average, obviously, not saying this applies to every single girl or boy).

I know many social progressives would argue this is due to socialization...but the effect seems too strong at too early an age to blame solely on socialization to me.

On a related note, I recently read an article about trans men where one noted that they seemed to have become more conversationally impatient, and blamed it on the different hormones: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/20/feat...

> "The hormones made me more impatient. I had lots of female friends and one of the qualities they loved about me was that I was a great listener. After being on testosterone, they informed me that my listening skills weren’t what they used to be. Here’s an example: I’m driving with one of my best friends, Beth, and I ask her “Is your sister meeting us for dinner?” Ten minutes later she’s still talking and I still have no idea if her sister is coming. So finally, I couldn’t take it anymore, and I snapped and said, “IS SHE COMING OR NOT?” And Beth was like, “You know, you used to like hearing all the backstory and how I’d get around to the answer. A lot of us have noticed you’ve become very impatient lately and we think it’s that damn testosterone!” It’s definitely true that some male behavior is governed by hormones. Instead of listening to a woman’s problem and being empathetic and nodding along, I would do the stereotypical guy thing — interrupt and provide a solution to cut the conversation short and move on. I’m trying to be better about this."

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

#879

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 11:41 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #824

pseudalopex wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're reading too much into informal phrasing. And a reasonable person would suspect prostitution or coercion.

I was commenting on the law relates to traveling for purposes of applying age of consent. If someone is traveling for other purposes and does have sex, then the local age is applied, not federal. The reasonable person test is sure to be resolved by court. But given their example, if someone is in Vegas and has sex with someone then the Nevada age of consent applies. But not if someone goes to Vegas with someone. If I…

> But given their example, if someone is in Vegas and has sex with someone then the Nevada age of consent applies. But not if someone goes to Vegas with someone.

A witness testified Giuffre was on the plane with Minsky.

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

#880

Post by lucideer » Tue, Mar 23, 2021, 11:56 AM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #10

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…

> intentionally offensive I think this is spot on, because people stopped caring about someone's intention before judging them. Maybe people got so good at lying about their intention, that we don't believe them when they say "it wasn't my intention" when someone says something bad. The end result is the same, it doesn't matter what your intention was, you say something bad, you deserve bad back.

In an ideal world, intent shouldn't really matter (it does matter in our world, for pragmatic reasons, but it shouldn't). If the results of one's actions cause harm, one should be dissuaded from continuing / repeating those actions, regardless of intent.

You do rightly point out the reason intent does tend to matter in reality: it's that the response to RMS' actions are punitive ("you deserve bad back"). And ideally people shouldn't be punished for unintended mistakes; they should instead be helped (sorry if that comes across condescending to the offender, but it's true).

Focusing on intent instead of outcomes is still regressive or reductive in either case though.

---

Aside: this is somewhat off-topic and probably a debate for a separate comment/thread here, but I do want to note I use the term "harm" above very intentionally; I don't believe "offensive" is the correct term here at all. Being offended is not harmful. I think a lot of aspects of PC/cancel-culture focus on protecting those who are "offended", which is nonsense. If you're not offending people in this world, you're not living. But doing actual harm goes beyond that, and should be addressed. And I do believe RMS' actions were harmful.