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

161–170 of 227 posts

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

#161

Post by sjy »

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”

> He directly addressed child pornography by saying that “making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.”

https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

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

#162

Post by BiteCode_dev »

warkdarrior wrote: post #69
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #27

There is a conflict here: on one hand we want diversity, accept people with their differences, their handicap or education. On the other hand we want them to behave the same way we do, otherwise we reject them. So your company should have people with handicap, but that have no effect on others. And diverse genders, but you should consider them all the same, even if we know we have diverse bodies, needs and behaviors.…

> we want them to behave the same way we do That is a false statement. We want people to behave respectfully of others, not the same way we do.

That's the theory.

In practice, respect is a spectrum that includes people sensitivity, education, social context, legality, and is not an absolute.

Drawing a picture of God may be worship for some, and disrespectful for others. For more daily simple things, it's the same.

If you want an autistic person to behave like you, with empathy, you are not asking for respect. The person may not be disrespecting you.

I had an asperger in my class last year, always interrupting me during my explanations. You can enrage that it was disrespect. Or you can understand he just didn't see he was disturbing the flow of the course.

Many on twitter would have accused him on mansplaining. I just asked him directly to keep interruptions limited to the time break. He complied, happy to have a clear instruction on how to deal with the situation.

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

#163

Post by [deleted] »

aortega wrote: post #17
eyelidlessness wrote: post #14

RMS is abusive. I'm autistic too. When I've behaved in similar ways, I've been similarly forced to account for my behavior. I resent the fact that ostensible defense of him as a person on the spectrum is so ideological. I distrust most of his defenders' sincerity when they talk about his neurodivergence, and I don't consider them allies.

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.

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by luckylion »

stonogo wrote: post #159
luckylion wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've rarely seen SJWs behave respectfully to others who weren't like them or were of some group they considered protected. It doesn't seem to be about respectfulness. It looks to be about a superficial diversity: of ethnicity, sex, gender, (dis-)ability etc, but not of thought.

Seems more likely you just don't label the respectful people "SJWs" or some other pejorative.

Possibly, but I don't see a lot of acceptance for actual diversity in diversity circles. There's a core they share (political stance, worldview) that's essential for being allowed. Diversity is allowed beyond that, but that's really no different than anywhere else. Trump fans of lots of different backgrounds get along great, because they share what they consider important.

The diversity movement is primarily concerned with allowing diversity outside of the core issues, while strictly forbidding it within, and purging those who don't comply, regardless of their gender, sex, ethnicity etc.

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

#165

Post by a1369209993 »

flapq wrote: post #147
jordigh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterletter accepted signatures for longer than the original letter, and it was heavily promoted in the Eastern bloc, which is very sympathetic towards causes that exclude women and other minorities. The original letter is signed by many of us who actually write the free software and who are part of GNU. I recognise people in the original letter I've collaborated on GNU software with, people I've met at confere…

It was not "promoted in the Eastern bloc". People from those regions could sign it under their real names without repercussions. The anti-Stallman letter is signed by the usual SJW developers who jump at any chance to cancel someone. Some of these went straight to positions of power in projects without having contributed anything of value. These developers represent less than 5% of projects, the other 95% either does…

> People from those regions could sign it under their real names without repercussions.

Precisely this; conversely, many people who signed the anti-Stallman letter were in positions where they would risk repercussions for not signing it, though it's (by design) hard to be sure to what extent that's why they signed it.

> either does not care

To be fair, I suspect >50% fall into this category.

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

#166

Post by [deleted] »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #162
warkdarrior wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we want them to behave the same way we do That is a false statement. We want people to behave respectfully of others, not the same way we do.

That's the theory. In practice, respect is a spectrum that includes people sensitivity, education, social context, legality, and is not an absolute. Drawing a picture of God may be worship for some, and disrespectful for others. For more daily simple things, it's the same. If you want an autistic person to behave like you, with empathy, you are not asking for respect. The person may not be disrespecting you. I had an…

[deleted]

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

#167

Post by 3grdlurker »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #162
warkdarrior wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we want them to behave the same way we do That is a false statement. We want people to behave respectfully of others, not the same way we do.

That's the theory. In practice, respect is a spectrum that includes people sensitivity, education, social context, legality, and is not an absolute. Drawing a picture of God may be worship for some, and disrespectful for others. For more daily simple things, it's the same. If you want an autistic person to behave like you, with empathy, you are not asking for respect. The person may not be disrespecting you. I had an…

I don’t know how you understand accountability but people who have clinically-diagnosed mental conditions that keep them from having full agencies over their actions are out of the question. The online political discourse you are referring to rests on the assumption that people with bigoted views and behaviors have no such diagnoses and are willfully embracing and practicing bigotry on their own.

You don’t even need to define absolutes, for god’s sakes. The point is that people shouldn’t bring their politics to the office, and they do that by not discriminating on anyone on the basis of anything, which necessitates respecting and valuing everyone equally. The problem is that, simply, people don’t do that and actively refuse to do that, because they feel that their inherently divisive views shouldn’t sow divisiveness in the office. It makes no sense.

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

#168

Post by eecc »

sjy wrote: post #161
eecc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

> He directly addressed child pornography by saying that “making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.” https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

Did you read what you quoted?

The point Stallman made, in the most deliberately urticant and confrontational possible way, is:

Are you willing to incarcerate people for drawings? However disturbing the subject?

> 26 October 2014 (Prison for cartoon) A man in the UK has been sentenced for prison for having a cartoon depicting a fictional child in some sort of sexual situation.

The advocates of this kind of censorship started by saying they were trying to protect real children from being abused in order to take their photos. Making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.

However, they have already gone far beyond that. No child was harmed in drawing the cartoon.

To criminalize possession of copies of anything published — no matter what it is — is oppressive, and leads to many other forms of tyranny.

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

#169

Post by BiteCode_dev »

3grdlurker wrote: post #167
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the theory. In practice, respect is a spectrum that includes people sensitivity, education, social context, legality, and is not an absolute. Drawing a picture of God may be worship for some, and disrespectful for others. For more daily simple things, it's the same. If you want an autistic person to behave like you, with empathy, you are not asking for respect. The person may not be disrespecting you. I had an…

I don’t know how you understand accountability but people who have clinically-diagnosed mental conditions that keep them from having full agencies over their actions are out of the question. The online political discourse you are referring to rests on the assumption that people with bigoted views and behaviors have no such diagnoses and are willfully embracing and practicing bigotry on their own. You don’t even need…

So if a vegan is offended when you eat a meat sandwich at the office, how do you know who is respecting who?

Society is currently not vegan in majority, so you could say they should adapt. Also you could adapt the point of view they are trying to do the least of harm, and are suffering from the harm you do. Then, you should adapt.

Diversity is bound to cause friction. That's just how it is.

There is no simple good answer to that.

It's always case by case. What's right today it not what's right tomorrow.

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

#170

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

luckylion wrote: post #164
stonogo wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems more likely you just don't label the respectful people "SJWs" or some other pejorative.

Possibly, but I don't see a lot of acceptance for actual diversity in diversity circles. There's a core they share (political stance, worldview) that's essential for being allowed. Diversity is allowed beyond that, but that's really no different than anywhere else. Trump fans of lots of different backgrounds get along great, because they share what they consider important. The diversity movement is primarily concerne…

> Trump fans of lots of different backgrounds get along great, because they share what they consider important.

I haven't thought about this earlier, but there is some truth to it. When I'm with my rightish colleagues, I can basically say anything I like, the worst I risk is being called a stupid commie. Of course they know we have very different opinions, but there is no problem - basically I feel free to discuss anything.

With my leftish friends, I really need to be much more careful. Frankly, I'm not up to date about all the current developments especially in the trans sphere, and I'm not sure if the thing that appears in my mind is the right one to say. And when I say something wrong, they are really outraged. They take it personally. So I find myself a bit more quiet when I' with them, and I keep my opinions about important issues to myself.

Post reply on HN