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

Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

perens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 227 posts

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#111

Post by yongjik »

aortega wrote: post #71
Arainach wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... >I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” >Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. There are plenty of primary sources, and they're not "corporate lobbyists". RMS is toxic.

>>Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. I said exactly that many times to girls when I was a teenager. It was a joke. Taken out of context, those phrases can mean anything good or bad.

I've never even heard someone talking like that when I was a teenager, and if I had, my reaction (and the reaction of most of my friends) would have been "Oh wow, geez..."

Maybe girls around you found it funny, I don't know, but women around Stallman clearly didn't. It's not a joke if nobody finds it funny.

Also, apparently it's controversial, but being unable to distinguish "telling a joke" from "creeping people out" should disqualify anyone from being a public figurehead. It's like a software engineer not being able to tell bubble sort from quicksort.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#112

Post by skissane »

enraged_camel wrote: post #74
aortega wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly are not an expert on autism. The disease is a huge spectrum of different behaviors, from almost normal, to severe retardation. I've seen RMS in real life, he's borderline can't take care of himself, that's not being abusive.

RMS himself has rejected the suggestion that he is on the spectrum, so I’m not sure why you are casually suggesting that he is.

As I've pointed out before [0], his "self-undiagnosis" appears to be based on misconceptions; given that, how much weight should we put on it?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537802

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#113

Post by comex »

> In doing this, I believe that the FSF board felt that punishment should have an end, especially in the case of the first punishment, and should include an opportunity for the punished to demonstrate that he has reformed his behavior.

Has Stallman apologized for the behavior in question, or stated that he has in fact reformed? Or is this mere speculation?

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#114

Post by lamontcg »

dsr_ wrote: post #97

The ADA requires reasonable accomodations, not unlimited accomodations. Reasonable accomodations are wheelchair ramps so they can enter your building, elevators for people who can't climb stairs, and changing your user interface so that people who can't see colors can operate it and people who can't see at all can use screen-readers. Where is the line to unreasonable accomodations? When a person permanently cannot do…

Defining his behavior as something protected by the ADA is getting deep into "affluenza" territory.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#115

Post by joshuamorton »

eecc wrote: post #89
jordigh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are his views not important when the entire mission of the FSF is to spread a very particular point of view? When RMS is advocating for zoophilia and necrophilia (he's finally relented on pedophilia, though, after many years of also defending "consensual" pedophilia), it hurts the advocacy for his other causes. You can't effectively simultaneously champion two such disparate causes without one cause seeping into…

Please refrain from libelous statements. I’ve never read anything from Stallman that defends any behavior a reasonable person would identify as Paedophilia, rather objections on the extremal formal definitions the US judiciary has for the status of “child”

This is a subtle ad hominem. There are many reasonable people who would describe Stallman's particular pedantry around the definitions of "child" to be pedophilia-apology. Describing anyone who disagrees with you, including the person you're replying to, as "not a reasonable person" is unbecoming of hacker news.

It's also absolutely not libel, and it's rather silly to throw such terms around.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#116

Post by KingOfCoders »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #42
KingOfCoders wrote: post #8

How is a "You can't lead an organisation and be a role model if your views hurt a significant amount of people in the organisation" a non-judicial punishment? If you can't read or write you would also probably not lead a large organization, and it's not punishment. Can you rejoin if you have learned reading and writing? Yes. Stallman is not a janitor but in top management (I have the highest respect for janitors but…

His views are not relevant. Should focus on his ability to contribute and keep personal beliefs out of the picture.

As a coder? Yes. As a manager and conference organizer? No.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#117

Post by dragonwriter »

geofft wrote: post #22

> In doing this, I believe that the FSF board felt that punishment should have an end, especially in the case of the first punishment, and should include an opportunity for the punished to demonstrate that he has reformed his behavior. That's an entirely reasonable theory. Would the FSF care to confirm it? How come the FSF hasn't said anything about why Stallman is back on the board - not even an announcement? Why ar…

> How come the FSF hasn't said anything about why Stallman is back on the board - not even an announcement?

The entirety of the FSF top-tier management resigning over this (the people that actually would do the work of directing staff to put together an announcement, reviewing it, approving it, etc.) probably has some impact on the lack of a coordinate communication campaign from the FSF. The Board (whose also lost at least one member) doesn’t do the day-to-day work, or even directly manage that work.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#118

Post by watwut »

Following is my ADA comment, with no relation to what RMS done or actually does not done.

On the extreme end, ADA does not insist on blind people being art gallery painting curators. ADA also does not insist on people with very little abstract thinking and logic being programmers. Accommodation does not mean that company have to put unsuitable people to positions. That includes influential positions and men/women who have severe social issues.

> Mr. Stallman likes women, but his interaction with them has been awkward and embarrassing in my personal presence, without ever reaching the level of forcing or violence.

From all I know, this is painting Stallman in even worst light then his detractors? I mean, this sounds much worst then you think. It is good that he never got criminal, but the workplace line really should be lower.

> his presence created an uncomfortable environment for women, which fits behavior I have witnessed

I think that sub-issue here is that why no one told him off, why he was not listened. People who merely dont understand can be dealt with, really, by frank and direct instruction. It more then just existing for those people to actually influence the culture around them - it takes cooperation of others, it takes them having actual influential power and being happy about creating uncomfortable environment. Whether for women or men.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#119

Post by legulere »

anonymousiam wrote: post #61
legulere wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we not act like the Second World War and consequently Karl Popper’s “ The Open Society and Its Enemies” didn’t happen? You cannot run a tolerant society without being intolerant to those that want to destroy it. You are right, that there is too much intolerance in today’s society, but I don’t think that it’s the case here. I think Stallman’s public statements about child rape deserve all the shunning he got.

How many people know exactly what was said, vs. reading some media report that "Stallman supported child rape?" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/richard-stallman... After one person wrote that "Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Islands," Stallman responded, "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whe…

I am very aware of the various things RMS said like the following: “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.”

https://thenextweb.com/dd/2019/09/13/free-software-icon-rich...

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#120

Post by staticassertion »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #96
staticassertion wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm no fan of Stallman, but I do find it worrying that some companies can unilaterally decide to sink the FSF if they don't like what it's doing. Why? That's like, the entire basis of every organization, that supporters don't have to support it. If a company selling a product behaves in a way you don't want to support you stop buying, if a charity stops supporting a cause you stop supporting it, etc.

The real question is why every single major company in America is vigorously enforcing social norms that significant portions of the population, often a majority, don’t even agree with. This is very different than other eras.

Is that the real question? I don't really think so, but even if it were it's one with numerous obvious answers.

Some obvious answers:

Companies are made of people, so decisions that are made are often a reflection of the values of those people, not necessarily those of some country or another.

That some group of companies tends to be American is unsurprising since (a) America owns tons of 'loud' industries like tech, so it will always seem this way, and (b) unsurprisingly the values of those who make up a company are tied to some extent by their background.

Companies may feel that their targeted consumer groups are likely sympathetic with some specific social norm.

Companies may feel that the issue is in fact bad for business ie: that someone is a bad fit for a role, is incompetent, etc.

etc

It's so obvious I wonder why one would even ask.

Post reply on HN