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

Post by tristan957 » Tue, May 16, 2023, 5:00 AM UTC

kweingar wrote: post #50

snvzz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments in the character assassination campaign were found baseless[0][1][2]. But the cancelation crowd's witch hunt continues even today. [0] https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai... [1] https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stal... [2] https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/

I know the things he said, the context he said them in, and the reasons he might have said them, and I still find it appalling. There were some headlines that took some of the quotes out of context, but that doesn't mean that what he said was ok.

Post by Georgelemental » Tue, May 16, 2023, 5:19 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #194

asdfman123 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better Agree. Broadly speaking, if someone is accused of a moral crime about which you have no privileged information, publicly hypothesizing about how they might be innocent is tantamount to a defence. It's a limit on free speech. And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. But when stated publicly, the argument's c…

Post by chriscappuccio » Tue, May 16, 2023, 5:32 AM UTC

gonzo wrote: post #223

pyuser583 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the controversy is that Stallman is known for being an uncompromising absolutist on open-source. So people assume he has the same attitude towards his terrible ideas. Stallman’s ideas on open source are well thought out, and vigorously defended for decades. His terrible ideas are neither well thought out, nor extensively defended.

To be pedantic, rms is an uncompromising absolutist on free software, not open source.

Post by eesmith » Tue, May 16, 2023, 5:35 AM UTC

historygurl wrote: post #230

bitwize wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patronizing a prostitute under 18 years of age is a federal crime throughout the United States, irrespective of local age-of-consent laws.

Which just demonstrates how nuts this all is. You’re in this jurisdiction on day X it’s one crime, another jurisdiction on day X+1 it’s another crime. There are real crimes happening you can get upset about (and maybe even do something about). This is about internet points for people that want to be seen to be upset. They are trading on the suffering of the very people they purport to represent.

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, May 16, 2023, 6:33 AM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #243

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better Agree. Broadly speaking, if someone is accused of a moral crime about which you have no privileged information, publicly hypothesizing about how they might be innocent is tantamount to a defence. It's a limit on free speech. And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. But when stated publicly, the argument's c…

> Broadly speaking, if someone is accused of a moral crime about which you have no privileged information, publicly hypothesizing about how they might be innocent is tantamount to a defence. What ??? How ??? Are we supposed to assume that every accusation we hear about is true, and everyone is guilty until proven innocent?