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

In Defense of Richard Stallman

geoff.greer.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#121

Post by roenxi »

sneak wrote: post #16

Is it possible for us to have leaders who are driven and excellent, who also manage to be excellent to other people? https://twitter.com/bcrypt/status/1173731697159835648 I don’t think it’s subscribing to or endorsing cancel culture to ask for that. RMS being a rude, insensitive jerk is not because he’s an aspie (claiming such is rude to aspies who manage to not be assholes), but because he is a selfish and self-abso…

"We deserve"? Stallman led because he is possibly literally the only person who stood up and tried to lead. It is difficult to imagine he won any sort of leadership contest with anyone (on anything apart from technical merit. Stallman just isn't a political animal). The work he has done is thankless and probably fairly miserable by an objective standard.

If you want to do a better job; go do it.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#123

Post by [deleted] »

gosub wrote: post #20

I hope RMS is safe, and that someone finds a way to let us all help him, in any meaningful way. The most disgusting thing is that whose who witch-hunted him, from their higher moral ground, will face no consequences at all.

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#124

Post by FeepingCreature »

t0astbread wrote: post #112

I wouldn't call the MIT CSAIL list "private communications". Sure, it's not open to the general public but it is public enough to warrant a public discussion. (Additionally it has members around the same age as the abuse victim.)

By that definition, any discussion that was ever leaked was not private, by virtue of it being leaked.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#125

Post by EmeraldMoon »

Barrin92 wrote: post #10

> They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that he had a mattress in his office. It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. > He held his positions at MIT, GNU, and the FSF for over thirty years, and in that time nobody accused h…

> Yes, because of people like you, Geoff.

I don't see why you have to attack the author here, but let me ask you this -- if I "feel" unwelcomed by your conduct, for whatever reason, on a "private" mailing list, then should you be forced to resign?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#126

Post by Chris2048 »

lagadu wrote: post #64
coldtea wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope people thinking like above, or sad finger-pointers like the ones writing the articles, are removed from the tech industry...

Yes, I too would like everyone who I disagree with to be removed from my industry. That was sarcasm, because apparently in 2019 that's an acceptable thing to say with a straight face.

"lynch-mobbers" are not "everyone who I disagree with".

Invoking isn't usually said with a straight face anymore.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#127

Post by CPLX »

lagadu wrote: post #87
CPLX wrote: post #47

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…

> His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your particular flavour of groupthink and no other? Nice thought policing there.

Yes, I believe publicly advocating for certain things can severely break cultural norms and make it impossible for you to effectively hold a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting.

Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? You can go to work and scream at people at the top of your lungs? Tell the receptionist you’re glad she had a miscarriage? Use the sink as a urinal?

Assuming we agree that at least one or two things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with some observations:

1) Saying it’s ok for adults to fuck minors is definitely on that list

2) I’m ok with that

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#128

Post by barry-cotter »

equalunique wrote: post #56
Barrin92 wrote: post #10

> They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that he had a mattress in his office. It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. > He held his positions at MIT, GNU, and the FSF for over thirty years, and in that time nobody accused h…

>It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. Can you please cite your sources for this claim?

He’s autistic. He probably gives almost everyone he comes into contact with the creeps. Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible.

I doubt Stallman was any more unpleasant to women than to men, or showed any greater or lesser social graces. He has never, ever held back about any of his opinions or actions. I’m sure you could get him to admit to things that would get almost anyone fired by most jobs in under ten minutes and he wouldn’t deny any of it afterwards.

People like Stallman don’t do professional because he’s not a faker. He’s not trying to make money or buy prestige. He just wants free software.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#129

Post by CaptainZapp »

DanBC wrote: post #8

> blatantly lie about what was said, I've seen this said a few times, and it needs to be cleared up. Stallman defended Minsky by saying it wasn't rape and it was assault. To mount this defence Stallman had to ignore common English definitions for both words, and he had to ignore the legal definitions of both words. People are angry at Stallman for what he actually said, not what you think they think he said. If you w…

People are angry at Stallman for what he actually said, not what you think they think he said.

I think it's more to the point that people who, for whatever reasons, have a grudge against Professor Stallman (and there are undoubtedly a lot of those) are very happily jumping on the band waggon.

edit: some clarification

Post reply on HN