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

371–376 of 376 posts

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

#371

Post by daneel_w »

howinteresting wrote: post #85
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?

What is derisively referred to as "guilt by association" is generally a pretty good way to evaluate moral character. Here's where "guilt by association" is bad: 1. You're a vegetarian. 2. Hitler is also a vegetarian. 3. Therefore, you're evil. Here's where making inferences about moral character using personal associations is good: 1. Bill Gates started his relationship with Epstein, after Epstein was convicted of se…

I don't understand why you can't contain yourself from being condescending and patronizing by posing your own preferred reasoning against such an absurdly childish example. The same could be said about your reasoning: you haven't evaluated the different characters and traits of people like Gates and, say, Donald Trump or a certain member of the British royal family. These are very different people. Unlike yourself I just don't assume the most damning scenario to be the likeliest when it comes to Bill Gates.

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

#372

Post by freejazz »

historygurl wrote: post #369
freejazz wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused because you seemed to be dismissing them as if they aren't "real" crimes...

Nah I was dismissing faux outrage at a guy saying whatever dumb shit, and those people basing their outrage in large part on such arbitrary jurisdictional issues. Outrage about the actual crime of human trafficking is of course called for but has nothing to do with RMS. Also, outrage at RMS won’t actually in any way address those crimes. But it feels good!

I don't care about RMS, but what are the arbitrary jurisdictional issues. There's nothing arbitrary or jurisdictional about human trafficking, just because might be of legal age. I feel like you aren't getting the fundamental issue that people base their shock/outrage/whatever off of. It's totally separate from thinking that attacking RMS over it will result in anything - as that's nothing but a strawman. There's no reason why criticism of anyone has to be tied to creating whatever societal-wide change is desired. That's just facially absurd.

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

#373

Post by loeg »

tmtvl wrote: post #301
dissahc wrote: post #236

“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children.” — Richard Stallman

He has rescinded that position: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... Not that you would likely have heard about that since (like, say, Michael Jackson) pro-Stallman reporting is unwanted.

It's not the kind of public statement you can just disavow and all is well! It's extremely damning that he ever held it and damning of his judgement that he thought expressing it was a good idea. I'm glad he has backpedaled but it doesn't rehabilitate him all the way back to zero.

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

#374

Post by howinteresting »

daneel_w wrote: post #371
howinteresting wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is derisively referred to as "guilt by association" is generally a pretty good way to evaluate moral character. Here's where "guilt by association" is bad: 1. You're a vegetarian. 2. Hitler is also a vegetarian. 3. Therefore, you're evil. Here's where making inferences about moral character using personal associations is good: 1. Bill Gates started his relationship with Epstein, after Epstein was convicted of se…

I don't understand why you can't contain yourself from being condescending and patronizing by posing your own preferred reasoning against such an absurdly childish example. The same could be said about your reasoning: you haven't evaluated the different characters and traits of people like Gates and, say, Donald Trump or a certain member of the British royal family. These are very different people. Unlike yourself I…

I presented a couple of clear-cut cases in the beginning (Gates/Epstein is as open-and-shut as Hitler/vegetarian imho) and elaborated at length about what I consider to be more borderline cases afterwards. I feel like I did a pretty good job communicating what I think. I'm sorry you felt it was condescending.

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

#375

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

prepend wrote: post #286
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "don't have sex with teenagers if you're a middle aged man" is pretty far from some sort of categorical dilemma.

It’s not in the sense that it’s currently legal in every US state to have sex with teenagers (18 and 19). So I don’t think it’s a categorical dilemma in that the entire US legally allows it. And laws are based on morals, etc etc. And then there are states and countries with even lower legal ages. Just because I think it’s skeevy, doesn’t mean society is settled on it. Take a look at strip clubs and professional porn…

I don't care about the law.

If you are a 40 year old man with substantial financial power, and you're on a private island where a teenager suddenly wants to have sex with you, that throws an entire universe of red flags. It may not be illegal, but it would absolutely be the basis for me to cut someone out of my life, and I'm disappointed the galaxy brain libertarians here don't see what's obviously problematic about it.

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

#376

Post by selimthegrim »

revelio wrote: post #316
sph wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American culture, including Puritanism, being exported worldwide since the 1980s, first through Hollywood and then through tech. You will not find a less Puritanical view of the matter on a forum composed of mostly people from the US or deeply embedded within its culture, like many software engineers are. For US and tech, sex talk and sexual freedom is a concept best avoided. You'll find more people arguing against g…

Rayiner is from Bangladesh originally, not the USA. You may be surprised to learn that the USA is by no means the culture with the strictest rules about sex and prostitution.

Bangladesh and West Bengal are hardly prudish about prostitution.
Post reply on HN