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

Cancel We The Web? (2020)

wetheweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#121

Post by Clewza313 »

klodolph wrote: post #103
Clewza313 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody.

> So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? That's a loaded question... it looks like you're making some wild assumptions about whether I think Stallman is toxic, and the reasoning for that. > Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody. So,…

I'm asking you a genuine question. I note you didn't call RMS out by name, but you certainly seem to be imply it.

Re: the article you shared, I didn't really see much evidence either way there? It's clear that RMS is, to put it mildly, "difficult to like", but there's a big difference between that and being straight up abusive, particularly given that it seems quite obvious that the mens rea is missing: as far as I can tell, most of the time RMS genuinely has no idea when he is being offensive.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#122

Post by manigandham »

klodolph wrote: post #119
manigandham wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "toxic" has been so overused as to become meaningless.

Strongly disagree. While people do misuse the word, it has meaning and can be figured out from context.

I find your disagreement to be toxic.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#123

Post by smsm42 »

tablespoon wrote: post #99
smsm42 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, she is the character that needs to be ignored. That's the proper way to deal with trolls - not feeding them, not fighting them but starving them of attention they so desperately crave.

> Nope, she is the character that needs to be ignored. That's the proper way to deal with trolls - not feeding them, not fighting them but starving them of attention they so desperately crave. That solution to trolling has never worked and never will. The reason is that it requires near complete agreement and coordination between uncoordinated individuals, which is impossible for any but the smallest groups. There's…

It doesn't require complete agreement - it does require same level of agreement and cooperation that allows us to have common language, common culture, common laws, Open Source projects, charities, etc. Just a common understanding that empowering people that thrive on tearing down and destroying others is bad for everybody, and we should not fall for any noble words they veil themselves with and see through it to the core of power lust and zeal for destruction.

Yes, there will always be those who do not abide for the societal convention for one reason or another. Cultures have dealt with this problem for millenia, it's not something new. As soon as we succeed in developing a common norm of not enabling the cancel trolls, we will have cultural mechanisms of maintaining this norm, as we maintain many other societal norms that allow us to exist as a culture and a society.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#124

Post by [deleted] »

dguaraglia wrote: post #112
prvc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Would you agree then that participating in the 'anti-anti' mobs is also a possible form of feigned 'empathy'? You have misread the comment twice over. I wrote nothing that would preclude your scenario from being a possibility, and I also wrote nothing about assuming a false pretense. In my opinion, wrt "empathy", most of the mob participants are just fooling themselves, and the cynical drivers of these controversies…

> You have misread the comment twice over. I didn't. > I wrote nothing that would preclude your scenario from being a possibility That's kind of my point: there's a lot of questioning the motivations of the 'cancel culture mob' around these parts recently, but very little questioning of the motivations of the 'anti cancel culture mob'. It almost feels like there's a gaping blind spot there. Unsurprisingly, a signific…

[deleted]

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#125

Post by krastanov »

qiqitori wrote: post #83
1024core wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This Sarah Mel character is the one who should be "cancelled".

I just took a look at her recent Tweets and TBH she doesn't seem much different from Stallman. Confrontational and set in her ways -- her mission just appears to be different from Stallman's mission and they crossed paths in an unfortunate manner. Both have great missions, and she shouldn't be "cancelled" either. (Stupid word, surely there had to be a better one)

I think Stallman's monomaniacal adherence to logic and rigor sets them very much apart.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#126

Post by boomboomsubban »

Arainach wrote: post #98
Clewza313 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody.

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... >I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” >Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. There's also his office door at one point: https://miro.medium.com/max/1050/1*lDSkAjF1958TpEafxuJsLg.jp... (source: https://selamjie.medium.com…

>I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”

The idea that Stallman would only violate women who use emacs is cartoonish levels of absurd. Personally, I'd expect he'd be thrilled they're at least using free software.

Besides that, the door thing seems to have been graffiti. And though I agree the dating anecdote makes him look bad, but also sounds like the actions of a person suffering from some mental illness.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#127

Post by Barrin92 »

saagarjha wrote: post #116
Barrin92 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

care to enlighten me on what part I didn't understand?

The part where it mentions that he isn’t defending sexual predators.

He is, and I'll quote the relevant part from Stallman's statement that is included in the article:

"The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing... We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing."

Not only is Stallman wrong about the fact that sexual assault requires force or violence, sex between a 73 year old man and a 17 year old is not only sexual assault but statutory rape, something which Stallman in another post declared to be a 'technicality'.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#128

Post by smsm42 »

ryandrake wrote: post #97
smsm42 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, she is the character that needs to be ignored. That's the proper way to deal with trolls - not feeding them, not fighting them but starving them of attention they so desperately crave.

This is why you should just ignore “people on Twitter.” People like this only have power if you pay attention to them. I’m not on Twitter and have never been. People could be “canceling” me there right now and I’d have no idea, and it wouldn’t affect me in the slightest. We give people power by paying undue attention to them.

I was on Twitter once, and one day I logged out of my account and threw away the password. I never regretted it so far. I had to tell people several times that I do not use twitter, but it never been any problem whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is still some content that is exclusive to Twitter, because some smart and otherwise reasonable people insist on putting it there. I wish they would choose any other platform.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#129

Post by _dh54 »

As an often brow beaten defender of liberalism in the face of progressivist cancel culture and zeal for censorship, I’m glad Strossen is standing up for liberalism. On the other hand, I’m that much more disappointed in our apparent moral cargo cult that it takes a voice like Strossen’s for liberal criticisms of progressivist cancel culture to be taken seriously.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#130

Post by dang »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #59

> Sarah Mei then went through the board members involved one by one, digging into each of their histories, and tweeting what she viewed as fire-worthy infractions. What a [negative adjective removed at moderator's request] human being. Worst of all, she probably views her activity as a worthy contribution to society.

Please don't. You may not owe the third party better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...

Post reply on HN