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

EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

clic.epfl.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 376 posts

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#71

Post by mardifoufs »

Retric wrote: post #62
mardifoufs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, his statements regarding pedophilia are enough. It's not exactly a hidden secret. Saying stuff like >I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only…

[flagged]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Obviously children experimenting with each other is very different from children having sex with adults. He didn't even mention older teens, he straight up implied that he

1) thinks that voluntary pedophilia is a thing

2) children can consent to sex with adults (again, broad statement that he didn't even limit to older teens)

That's very different from children experimenting together. Stallman implies that not wanting some adult creep to prey on your kid is just some sort of moral panic, which is... a pretty horrible take and one that is often repeated by predators. A teen having sex with another teen is normal and part of the process of maturing, but with an adult it has a completely different power dynamic.

Plus, being attracted to prepubescent or pubescent teens as an adult is inherently awful and problematic. It has nothing to do with a teen being attracted to another peer.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#72

Post by kayodelycaon »

mardifoufs wrote: post #64
kayodelycaon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a difference between a controversial opinion and one of the strongest taboos in American culture.

Pedophilia isn't exactly an American only issue. I'm not American but if thinking that pedophilia harms children is an American "taboo"... Then consider me thoroughly americanized lol.

It's far from exclusive, but I don't know enough about other cultures to definitively say universally strong in all existing ones. (It hasn't been historically.)

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#73

Post by pfannkuchen »

mardifoufs wrote: post #54
seydor wrote: post #12

We ll never know what "the situation" is and whatever "statements that do not correspond to any of our values" are. Good job smearing mud without saying anything i guess. Did stallman say something since he was invited that was particularly noticeable? if not then these organizers don't know what they 're doing and this reflects bad on them

I mean, his statements regarding pedophilia are enough. It's not exactly a hidden secret. Saying stuff like >I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only…

Is he talking about pre or post puberty? The term pedophilia sometimes lumps both together. Pre seems quite unnatural, or at least there is no obvious natural mechanism that would make it normal or beneficial. Post is a cultural matter, since age of marriage has fluctuated a lot over time. Discussing post seems reasonably defensible, discussing pre immensely less so.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#75

Post by Retric »

mardifoufs wrote: post #71
Retric wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Obviously children experimenting with each other is very different from children having sex with adults. He didn't even mention older teens, he straight up implied that he 1) thinks that voluntary pedophilia is a thing 2) children can consent to sex with adults (again, broad statement that he didn't even limit to older teens) That's very different from children experimenting toge…

I think you’re misunderstanding the definition of what that word means.

1) A 12/13 year old and a 16 year old experimenting is likely pedophilia depending on the biology of the 12/13 year old.

2) consent is a circular argument. The assumption that they can’t give consent arises from the assumption of harm and therefore cannot be used to justify harm.

Animals for example can’t give consent to each other, that doesn’t make two bald eagles reproducing harmful.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#77

Post by [deleted] »

kweingar wrote: post #19
post-it wrote: post #5

Anyone have a background summary? Last I heard he kept a mattress in his office and asked people to lay on it, and he had a stupid neutral pronoun idea he was very insistent on using. Has something stranger come up?

He objected to the word "assault" being used to describe Marvin Minsky (allegedly) having sex with one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims.

[deleted]

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#78

Post by 908B64B197 »

seydor wrote: post #12

We ll never know what "the situation" is and whatever "statements that do not correspond to any of our values" are. Good job smearing mud without saying anything i guess. Did stallman say something since he was invited that was particularly noticeable? if not then these organizers don't know what they 're doing and this reflects bad on them

> We ll never know what "the situation" is and whatever "statements that do not correspond to any of our values" are.

All we know is that someone was paid by the Swiss tax-payers to write that.

> Did stallman say something since he was invited that was particularly noticeable?

Maybe they found another anonymous blog post to cancel him? Who knows.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#79

Post by medguru »

alex_lav wrote: post #57
daneel_w wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you or anyone else been able to confirm the relationship was what you imply it was, or are you advocating guilt by association?

> advocating guilt by association? You using the word "guilt" suggests you're venturing into the strawman of "innocent until proven guilty", or that public opinion must follow the same rules as the judicial system. Even if he didn't do anything illegal, Jeffrey Epstein is gross and awful. It's totally fine for society to not want people "guilty" of associating frequently and voluntarily to be powerful and influential…

Maybe it's that I'm not rested right now but I find it hard to follow this train of thought because your reasoning is kinda wide, lofty and out there but I think OP means that it's irrational to throw Bill Gates entirely to the side based only on -another person- he associated with. Like how picky and fussy people refuse to touch something clean and unspoiled just because it sat next to something else that happened to be gross and smelly. I know it's clean but eww, icky. That kind of guilt by association.

Epstein's lawyers and his realtor, his tailor and his golf partners also associated with him but they don't appear at all to be desirable targets to debase with the same treatment and that's probably because they aren't rich or powerful or influential. And I'm certain that's what's tripping you. It's not just OK but maybe even preferential and encouraged by you to take a dump on certain people when a tiny vague chance presents itself only because the person is powerful.

I found this earlier comment from you on this topic which is a bit funny given your statement. To me youre kinda describing yourself.

  HN is pretty divided about Stallman. Bringing up the things he actually at one
  time said, even if later he said something different, results in a lot of
  downvoting and toxicity. You can't talk about him without it devolving into
  binary thinking and binary debates. Same as everything else in 2023 I guess.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#80

Post by verbify »

VagueMag wrote: post #27
tivert wrote: post #21

Did Stallman do anything new that offended certain political persuasions, or is this cancellation only due to previous controversies/peculiarities? Edit: the level of downvotes/flag-kills of comments just asking "why" and "what happened" is pretty depressing.

Stallman made some remarks defending Marvin Minsky (very poorly) from victims' allegations that he abused young girls on Epstein's island. Meanwhile, Reid Hoffman is now known to have visited the island and has not seen any firestorm of cancellations, as far as I'm aware.

Stallman's comments can be verified. However we have no idea what Reid Hoffman saw or did on the island - he had plausible deniability. Therefore Stallman can face social consequences for his actions (without exposing EPFL to a defamation lawsuit), that is much harder with Reid Hoffman.
Post reply on HN