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

181–190 of 376 posts

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

#181

Post by technothrasher »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #121
skissane wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only after it resurfaced and created a lot of controversy). He said he didn’t understand the issue and talking to abuse survivors helped him understand it better, and that led to him changing his view. To me, that sounds like a person simply updating their views in response to new evidence-new to them even if much older to many others. Labelling it as “back-pedalling”…

"He said he didn’t understand the issue" No he said he was skeptical that pedophilia harms children. The quote wasn't "say, anyone know does this pedophilia thing actually harms children?" He did more than that: He imputes claims of harm to parents not wanting to admit their kids are "maturing". Now his position his quite hard to distinguish from someone who fully supports pedophilia. If they were in his position, I…

"No he said he was skeptical that pedophilia harms children."

I believe the poster you are replying to was referring to what Stallman said at a later date, recanting his "skepticism" because he "didn't understand the issue" at the time he made that comment.

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

#182

Post by pimlottc »

The submission title appears to be editorialized; the word “persona” doesn’t appear in the original article, and it’s an odd choice, as it implies that Stallman’s statements and actions are a deliberate facade that’s separate from his true identity.

“Personality” is probably what the submitter intended, though again, it’s an editorialization, as the original article is more understated about the exact reasons.

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

#183

Post by Alupis »

kenjackson wrote: post #142
pessimizer wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates is connected enough to Epstein to be suspected of participating in it. Of course he isn't talking about it.

I haven't seen a single credible claim that Gates participated in anything inappropriate. The biggest red flag IMO is that his wife divorced him over it.

Given how open of a secret this apparently was in Hollywood circles, it's a little hard to believe someone as well connected as Bill Gates wouldn't have any shred of an idea...

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

#184

Post by pseudalopex »

garbagecoder wrote: post #38
kweingar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we shun Bill Gates because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? In my opinion, yes, absolutely.

I mean, as far as we know, that's what his wife did, right? Or is that just Internet wisdom?

The Wall Street Journal said several anonymous sources said it was 1 of the reasons she left.

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

#185

Post by asdfman123 »

myshpa wrote: post #145

"The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list. In it, the author quotes an email from Stallman where he explains that Marvin Minsky likely wouldn’t have known that the woman on Jeffrey Epstein’s island was coerced: …the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had…

You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better.

The problem with a lot of these sorts things is intentionally making yourself blind to the emotional impact, pretending not to know, when some part of you does understand what you’re doing.

It’s all just plausible deniability. We get it quite clearly, we don’t need it explained to us.

You might say this is tone policing but he’s a prominent leader of the open source movement. What he says matters.

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

#186

Post by VagueMag »

serf wrote: post #175
verbify wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Stallman's comments can be verified. However we have no idea what Reid Hoffman saw or did on the island we are comparing two people: one participated, and one was giving a personal opinion about the participation. here's my question. why are we pretending as if these two offenses are equal? An opinion can be changed, an action cannot. the plausible deniability factor of acting deaf and blind to a situation that surr…

Locals who had never even visited called it "Pedophile Island."

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

#187

Post by gerash »

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…

If someone says something controversial without malice they should not be "cancelled".

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

#188

Post by 8note »

alex_lav wrote: post #158
medguru wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> I think OP means that it's irrational to throw Bill Gates entirely to the side based only on -another person- he associated with. Why is that irrational? > Epstein's lawyers and his realtor, his tailor and his golf partners also associated with him Surely we as reasonable people can acknowledge the societal difference between Bill Gates and his tailor, no? > It's not just OK but maybe even preferential and encourag…

> Powerful people's decisions deserve to be scrutinized at a higher level than societally irrelevant people, yes.

I think the opposite, at least as far as this is concerned. To Epstein's tailor, Epstein is very replaceable, whereas to Gates, the tradeoff for ditching Epstein would be something like millions fewer people getting vaccinations

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

#189

Post by tedivm »

tzs wrote: post #152
kenjackson wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Stallman said a bunch of to try to either claim that the victims weren't victims. Or to try to downplay what happened. What he said was that the girl who was ordered to offer sex to Minsky would have been ordered to present it as if it was a willing offer. This should not have been controversial. One of the first things covered in Evil Villain School is that when you are using your slaves (sex or otherwise) to try…

She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time. So it really doesn't matter how "willingly" she may have presented herself.

Also, come on, I'm 37 and I wouldn't have sex with a teenager. Even beyond legality (which isn't really an issue, the dude is dead) there are the ethical considerations. This dude was sketchy and RMS is sketchy for defending him.

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

#190

Post by Manuel_D »

bawolff wrote: post #174
Manuel_D wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then condemn him for the things he actually said or did (and I agree, there are valid reasons to distance oneself from him), not on account of misinformation.

While i agree in principle, in practise it is very human nature that once someone does enouh questionable things people will stop rushing to that person's defense, and it starts to matter much less if the current thing is true. It is sort of reverse boy who cried wolf.

The fact that it's in human nature doesn't make it any less reprehensible. Physical violence is in human nature, too.
Post reply on HN