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

901–910 of 943 posts

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

#901

Post by [deleted] »

dralley wrote: post #566
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…

This was not mob justice. There was decades of poor behavior here, he wasn't pushed out because of this singular event. https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

[deleted]

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

#902

Post by Aloha »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #860
Aloha wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I've spent a lifetime learning a rulebook by trial and error that everyone else just seems to know . It's absolutely maddening then the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up.

I’m sorry I didn’t see this sooner. Just want to say I’ve felt this, most of my life. I wish I had more to offer than this but: you’re not alone, and I hope knowing that will be as helpful to you as it’s been to me.

Thank You! This whole post, and another comment I made on this thread was super affirming, its nice to know I'm not alone.

It's why what people call 'cancel culture' scares the snot out of me, I'm deathly afraid I'm gonna say or do the wrong thing, and not really have a way to respond to it, and pay some sort of heavy toll. I'm okay with free speech having consequences (its the only way to ensure we can actually have speech mostly free of government regulation). I just wish those consequences were not applied for things deemed ex post facto (often by decades) to be violations of social norms.

But there is a certain amount of mental exhaustion from having to filter everything I say outside of some very very narrow circles, lest I say something that could be deemed in the future to be 'problematic'.

The larger issue I see, is our current focus on peoples actions in the past is it leaves no room for personal growth or to change views, it if anything hardens people views and perspectives - if someone gets no credit for getting better about something (like use of pronouns, or whatever else), there is no incentive to improve.

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

#903

Post by dang »

jdub wrote: post #834
blagie wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you still don't understand, on an underlying level, what culture is, how people differ from each other, or how to accommodate that diversity. I'm trying to help you by at least pointing you in the right direction, but I'm close to giving up. It's Dunning-Kruger (which is not an insult and not uncommon in this domain) -- you're unaware of what you don't know. My experience is the international business communi…

For pity's sake, none of this applies to Richard's behaviour you supercilious twat.

We ban users that post like this, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting to HN, we'd be grateful.

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

#904

Post by bluehat »

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…

Neurodivergent folks often need a little extra time to learn or for somebody to sit down and explain things to clearly. We do not need a carte blanche for decades of sexual harassment. That's just somebody being an asshole and using us as a shield.

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

#905

Post by nobody9999 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #875
nobody9999 wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough.

You won't get any argument about that from me. Consent is never optional and if an individual isn't able to consent (for whatever reason), then sexual activity with that individual is both inappropriate and, as you pointed out, a crime in most places.

The discussion as to when a person should be legally able to consent to sexual activity is one that's hotly debated and the laws concerning that varies greatly around the world.

Such variation causes a great deal of confusion. I can legally have (consensual) sex with a 12 year-old in Brazil, but in the Virgin Islands, I could go to jail.

But reality is rarely as cut and dried as that. Teenage boys in the US have been branded sex offenders for life because they engaged in consensual sexual activity (and not just sexual acts either. There have been cases where sexting between teenagers has landed children in jail) with teenage girls.

It's wholly inappropriate, and IMHO, should be a crime for adults to manipulate children into sexual activity. Sadly, that happens all too often.

On the larger issue, I expect that we are in violent agreement. However, I choose not to demonize someone for having a conversation about the setting of arbitrary age limits WRT the ability to consent, especially given the wide variation in those arbitrary limits.

It seems clear to me that age limits need to be set to deter the manipulation and abuse of vulnerable individuals (in this case, young people) and it seems unworkable to address those on a case-by-case basis. As such we're back to setting arbitrary limits.

Simply discussing what those limits should be isn't harmful to anyone, and no one should be demonized for just having that conversation.

There's a big difference between contemplating what range of ages should be considered appropriate for consent to sexual activity and actively abusing those without the ability to consent.

To quote the eminent philosopher[0], those two things:

"...ain't the same fucking ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport."

[0] https://youtu.be/TD1CNqghN7Q?t=170

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

#906

Post by pseudalopex »

nobody9999 wrote: post #905
pseudalopex wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough. You won't get any argument about that from me. Consent is never optional and if an individual isn't able to consent (for whatever reason), then sexual activity with that individual is both inappropriate and, as you pointed out, a crime in most places. The discussion as to when a…

Naming what someone did isn't demonizing them. And you're portraying what he said as something different than it was.

He didn't engage in conversation. He declared opposing ideas prejudiced and narrow minded. He invented a story about who disagreed with him and mocked them.

When adolescents can consent legally is arbitrary and varies greatly. The idea children too young for puberty lack the understanding and independence to give consent varies not much at all. Even Stallman seems to understand that now. Prosecuting teenagers for sexting is draconian but a different issue completely.

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

#907

Post by john4532452 »

pratio wrote: post #772
john4532452 wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its important to emphasis one thing about Ribbonfarm. The author wholly supports for Hindu caste system. This is where his arguments come from.

Do you have a source for this?

One source i can show is from his blog post https://web.archive.org/web/20210202083240/https://www.ribbo...

> As thoughtless teenagers, we made crude SC/ST jokes. Here’s one: at a urinal in a government recruitment center, there is a line marked on the wall with the note, “if you can pee above this line, you get the job.”

This was unnecessary considering the dalits commiting sucide after joining IIT or other elite colleges due to harrasment from the Brahmins community students. Even if you give the benefit of doubt on this one simply as telling a story, look for the next quote.

> .. but I am enough of a free-speecher to acknowledge that it has a right to

This... This is the mindset of the upper caste Brahmins. They don't want the reservations based on caste but at the same time they don't want it to go away, simply because it provides birth entitlement at the cost of the other castes.

It does not matter he is an atheist. Even the founder of Hindutva philosophy is an atheist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar whom these modern educated caste supporting intellectuals admire.

That blog post is quite long, If you read the entire post you get the impression that after all caste system is not bad, just the implementation had gone wrong. In fact any one who says caste is not that bad especially in USA, it is very likely they are from upper caste brahmin community.

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

#908

Post by krageon »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #888
krageon wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes from a reasonable place: It shouldn't be generalised. You may have issues with specific things that were said (or how they were said), but that isn't clear from your response. Perhaps you could add that, so the author can learn.

I take issue with every part of it. The claim that the other person’s experience is dangerous, that it’s insane, that it’s harming children, and that they didn’t experience it.

You didn't really engage with what I said at all, except at the most superficial level. It's really not a very nice way to have a conversation, especially given that regardless of whether or not I agree I was absolutely trying to help you.

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

#909

Post by lawnchair_larry »

mjg59 wrote: post #849
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As you’re aware, this isn’t a claim that pedophilia does no harm. Keep looking.

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

#910

Post by eyelidlessness »

krageon wrote: post #908
eyelidlessness wrote: post #888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take issue with every part of it. The claim that the other person’s experience is dangerous, that it’s insane, that it’s harming children, and that they didn’t experience it.

You didn't really engage with what I said at all, except at the most superficial level. It's really not a very nice way to have a conversation, especially given that regardless of whether or not I agree I was absolutely trying to help you.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to get from me here.

You said:

> You may have issues with specific things that were said (or how they were said), but that isn't clear from your response. Perhaps you could add that, so the author can learn.

I addressed those specifics, as far as I can tell all of the specifics of substance. I was engaging your suggestion in good faith. I did take and accept it as helpful. I’m open to the possibility there’s some nuance I’m missing?

Post reply on HN