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

Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#11

Post by [deleted] »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #5
fortran77 wrote: post #3

I'm no fan of Stallman, but this was a very odd reason to give the guy the boot. They're mad at Epstein, and he's dead, so they need other people to direct their anger at. Who knows what Minsky may or may not have done? Nobody. He's dead too. So when Stallman did some awkward speculating, these women constructed false stories about what Stallman said, and then used these false statements as lies to get Stallman fired…

SJWs are out of control and doing real damage, but don't generalize your grudge to half of humanity.

[deleted]

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#12

Post by mikeash »

scrumper wrote: post #4
pbiggar wrote: post #2

The author expects people to fully understand stallmans world view and to thoroughly examine his position. However, the author did not pay the same regard to Salam G., the author of the original post reporting on the most recent of Stallmans shitty proclamations. The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman was fired, nor did he show he had done to work to try and get it. You can safely…

> The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman was fired... Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes: > The goals Selam G. seeks to advance are good ones. Institutions like MIT need to closely consider their past and present treatment of women. People at those institutions, and perhaps even Stallman himself, need to have their worst impulses checked, or possibly even be removed…

Since when did anyone ever expect due process when being fired? This is a world where you can be fired for showing up 30 seconds late because of a road closure.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#13

Post by kjksf »

CPLX wrote: post #10

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

This is perfect example of mob mentality in action.

At no point Stallman was defending sex with minors. And yet, here you are, extremely offended at him for something he didn't say.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#14

Post by CPLX »

kjksf wrote: post #13
CPLX wrote: post #10

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

This is perfect example of mob mentality in action. At no point Stallman was defending sex with minors. And yet, here you are, extremely offended at him for something he didn't say.

"I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17."

"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)"

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] 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."

- Richard Stallman

Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pione...

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#15

Post by scrumper »

mikeash wrote: post #12
scrumper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman was fired... Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes: > The goals Selam G. seeks to advance are good ones. Institutions like MIT need to closely consider their past and present treatment of women. People at those institutions, and perhaps even Stallman himself, need to have their worst impulses checked, or possibly even be removed…

Since when did anyone ever expect due process when being fired? This is a world where you can be fired for showing up 30 seconds late because of a road closure.

Is that the way it should be? And if not, are you saying that there's no point in arguing for something better?

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#16

Post by verroq »

CPLX wrote: post #10

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

>Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with people of the same sex is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#17

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

CPLX wrote: post #10

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

While I agree what RMS said was incorrect, let's recast CPLX's arguments into the Middle Ages and see what happens:

> Our culture has made a very bright line decision that being an atheist is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted.... While I appreciate the efforts to make this into some kind of principled argument, I don't find "first they came for the people advocating for not believing in God" to be particularly compelling."

Does the problem become clear now? (Substitute abolitionism, suffragism, civil rights, etc. for atheism if you like.) Ironically, much like the conservatives they oppose, progressives are arguing that it is acceptable to crucify people who say something that is agains the status quo and tradition.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#18

Post by scooble »

CPLX wrote: post #14
kjksf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perfect example of mob mentality in action. At no point Stallman was defending sex with minors. And yet, here you are, extremely offended at him for something he didn't say.

"I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be ba…

As I understand it, the latter 2 quotes are now rather old and Stallman has publicly renounced those views.

While I'm sure it wasn't your intention, a casual reader of your post might get the impression that they were all part of the conversation he appears to have been fired for.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#19

Post by hsk823 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #17
CPLX wrote: post #10

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

While I agree what RMS said was incorrect, let's recast CPLX's arguments into the Middle Ages and see what happens: > Our culture has made a very bright line decision that being an atheist is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely ac…

This argument has no sway, because the passage of time has occurred since the Middle Ages. We no longer live in the Middle Ages. We will deal with what is unconscionable in 2019 using 2019 standards.

Equating literally a currently criminal act that negatively affects individuals we consider defenseless because of their legal minor status, to social movements that have found validity after it's initial dismissal is just not rationale. Unless the argument is that sex with a child should be socially acceptable.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#20

Post by javagram »

CPLX wrote: post #10

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means th…

Stallman made those questionable, problematic statements on his blog a decade ago.

He was cancelled because of a email thread related to Epstein that media outlets lied about. If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago?

Post reply on HN