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

101–110 of 376 posts

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

#101

Post by mardifoufs »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #73
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…

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.

Personally I don't think the distinction matters (both are bad), but even then he also doesn't seem to make the distinction. Here is another quote [to be clear, I don't disagree with the first two lol]:

Prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness

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

#102

Post by say_it_as_it_is »

marcodiego wrote: post #32

Bill Gates had bonds with Epstein. His multi decade marriage fell after the fact became public. He didn't get 1% the flak that Stallman had for commenting about a word to describe Marvin Minsky.

Conspiracy theory about Epstein or something other than a 4chan source of proof?

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

#103

Post by microtherion »

VagueMag wrote: post #40
sokoloff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many factually accurate statements that are, nevertheless, inappropriate to wildly inappropriate under the circumstances. I have personally interacted with rms decades ago and have a generally positive impression of his entire body of contributions to computing. Nevertheless, reading the controversies section on the wikipedia page induces a combination of cringing and face-palming. Someone researching the s…

This is a classic motte and bailey: "it's normal for adults to be attracted to adolescents" used to defend "it was reasonable for a fat CS prof in his 70s to believe a young minor on Epstein's island wanted to have sex with him absent any coercion going on (or for Stallman to advance this idea)."

For all we know, she may have been coerced to tell Minsky that reading The Society of Mind was such a turn on for her that she had to ravish the author there & then…

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

#104

Post by arp242 »

kweingar wrote: post #39
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?

I'm not sure what you think I'm implying about their relationship. It is well-known that Gates continued to associate with Epstein after the latter was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution. There doesn't really need to be anything else to the story in my opinion. (Editing to be clearer: I don't think he is guilty of Epstein's crimes by association. I think he is guilty of associating with Epstein while bei…

What does "associate with" mean in this context? As in, what does it mean concretely? Genuine question. I've had friends ("associated with") that had criminal histories, some of them even quite severe. Of course, I took no part in those crimes, and I don't think anyone here would hold having friends with criminal histories against me.

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

#105

Post by pfannkuchen »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #88
pfannkuchen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't the place to have this discussion. As a writer who writes stories set in the past, you have to be really careful with this topic. It's not one you bring up in a general forum.

Thanks for the input. To be clear, I'm not advocating for any social changes here, and I generally agree with the current social approach given brain development stages and the fact that individuals choose their own partners these days. But one thing is, like, brain damaged levels of icky, and the other one is more of an eccentric and socially tone deaf opinion.

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

kenjackson wrote: post #100
marcodiego wrote: post #32

Bill Gates had bonds with Epstein. His multi decade marriage fell after the fact became public. He didn't get 1% the flak that Stallman had for commenting about a word to describe Marvin Minsky.

Bill Gates didn't say much about it, except he didn't know about any of the "bad stuff" and was deceived. Stallman said a bunch of to try to either claim that the victims weren't victims. Or to try to downplay what happened. Those are huge differences.

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by say_it_as_it_is »

thraway3837 wrote: post #74

[flagged]

No, it doesn't only take a few stupid utterances. The moral crusaders only have power with those who have none. Donald Trump still isn't in prison for doing and saying far, far worse over several decades.

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

#108

Post by pfannkuchen »

mardifoufs wrote: post #101
pfannkuchen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Personally I don't think the distinction matters (both are bad), but even then he also doesn't seem to make the distinction. Here is another quote [to be clear, I don't disagree with the first two lol]: Prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowm…

Thanks for the quote. I do agree both are bad, but in the way that severely beating someone and murdering someone are both bad. It sounds like he is pretty out there.

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

#109

Post by alienicecream »

thraway3837 wrote: post #74

[flagged]

Incorrect move. Having an opinion is not destructive to society. On the contrary, interrogating our beliefs clarifies them and allows the truth to come through and controversial opinions are a vehicle for that. Wanting to ban and silence people who say controversial things is a sign of weakness and fear, that should itself be examined.

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

#110

Post by Gigachad »

tivert wrote: post #36
VagueMag wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is in reply to the GP, which was inappropriately flag-killed. The difference is probably that Stallman has no money or power, so he's an easy, safe target to attack.

Stallman also likely has autism and can't manage his public appearance nearly as well as Gates.
Post reply on HN