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

Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 357 posts

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#181

Post by lazyjones »

ceejayoz wrote: post #18
geekone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones were troubling? I don't see anything that stands out on the page linked.

2006: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily 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. 2013: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_Janua... > There is little ev…

Unacceptable opinions, but a bit late to justify misquoting him in 2019. He was pretty much in line with e.g. the german Green party in the 70s....

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#183

Post by codesushi42 »

throwaway17746 wrote: post #142
codesushi42 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no real difference. He said that. And there are even worse comments that he made in that thread.

There's a big difference. "Presented as" does not mean "was", and the sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such. There are other pretty bad comments, yes. If most of the coverage focused on those rather than something he didn't actually say, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

"Presented as" does not mean "was"

It can mean that.

sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such.

No, it is debatable. The following sentence does not clearly state they were unwilling.

Another Stallman gem:

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily 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.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#184

Post by cannonedhamster »

gruez wrote: post #88
claudeganon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I’m happy to live in a future where bankrolling the denial of other’s human rights is something that can cost you your job, even if you’re wealthy and powerful. No one would have questioned him being forced to resign if he had financed an anti-miscegenation initiative. It’s just that hatred of LGBTQ people is still normalized to the extent that people think you should be “given a pass.”

>Honestly, I’m happy to live in a future where bankrolling the denial of other’s human rights is something that can cost you your job, even if you’re wealthy and powerful. Sounds great when it's working for you. How about in reverse? Are you fine with CEOs firing employees that don't follow their preferred political affiliation/positions? Just to make it interesting let's say it's pro-deregulation, anti-union, anti-w…

Apparently people just got fired over at Kickstarter for wanting to going a union. Also I think you forget that the national guard have been called in and killed Union members in the Pennsylvania coal fields for unionizing. Also Reagan with his union busting. I had a boss who literally sent an email out to the entire company saying he was increasing our healthcare costs by cutting our benefits if Obama won and he did. The stuff you're taking about happens all the time.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#185

Post by brian-armstrong »

geofft wrote: post #56

Worth noting that (as far as I know) Stallman was not a paid employee of MIT, certainly not a professor or anything. He had an office because, I believe, Gerry Sussman (and probably others) thought he should have an office. He's listed as a "visiting scientist" on CSAIL's page: https://www.csail.mit.edu/person/richard-stallman He's around on the mailing list (mostly to reply to every mention of software with a questi…

So he was crashing on their couch rent free, and he thanks them by posting crazy screeds on the mailing list? It's not terribly surprising it turned out like this.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#186

Post by vichu »

ocschwar wrote: post #157
coolandsmartrr wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little tangential, but I didn't know there was a utility called `finger`. Is this supposed to be a profile directory envisioned for an Internet back when it was more decentralized?

Wow, I'm old

I’m likely not as, but kids in undergrad still “finger”ed people at my school as late as 2016. Can’t say anything about after that though :)

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#187

Post by michaelmrose »

codesushi42 wrote: post #120
frio wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really hesitant to wade into this. I think resigning was the right move for Stallman. What he actually said , without Vice editing the quote, is: We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. From the email thr…

I see no real difference. He said that. And there are even worse comments that he made in that thread.

Supposing that Epstein would have told her to act willing and supposing that she was willing are two entirely different things.

The first is what was actually said the latter is a lie being repeated.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#188

Post by throwaway17746 »

veemacs wrote: post #177
throwaway17746 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference. "Presented as" does not mean "was", and the sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such. There are other pretty bad comments, yes. If most of the coverage focused on those rather than something he didn't actually say, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

Here here, RMS is a weirdo but he's being vilified for things that do not effect his job in any way, he is by no means a representative for MIT, and his opinions on unrelated matters (no matter how misguided they might be) do not change his ability to represent the FSF.

>and his opinions on unrelated matters (no matter how misguided they might be) do not change his ability to represent the FSF

Now that I can't say I totally agree with. The free software movement is a political movement, and as such his statements and opinions on social issues of all kinds have a deep impact on whether or not he can be a good representative of the FSF.

But we should at least be truthful about his statements and opinions!

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#189

Post by darawk »

geofft wrote: post #148
darawk wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The arguments Stallman presented were hardly arguments and were not novel at all. You think that Minsky being unaware of the coercion would not be a mitigating factor in accusing him of sexual assault? When was that decided?

I genuinely don't think that was a novel argument to his interlocutors. I think they'd thought of that, and I think they have good counterarguments. (I'd like to not get into arguing about Minsky's own actions or about mitigating factors in sexual assault in this particular thread. 'esotericn is talking about what is reasonable to discuss or not in which circumstances, not about the merits of the argument in question…

> I genuinely don't think that was a novel argument to his interlocutors. I think they'd thought of that, and I think they have good counterarguments.

I guess I don't understand your point about Stare Decisis, then. Is your point that Stallman knew that his argument was wrong, but he put it forward anyway? Was there some piece of social case law he was supposed to be referencing here?

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#190

Post by mcguire »

mjevans wrote: post #103
codesushi42 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the hell are you talking about? What intellectual level? Stallman is quoted to have said: Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.” How is that a rational, defensible statement in any terms?

I am speculating about your specific question; NOT any specific real circumstances. Which of these three seems more likely in GENERAL: A) That this happened on a party island and all adults were willing. B) That someone has been lead to believe this is a consensual act on some party island with willing people there; but in reality the victim is coerced into presenting false consent. C) That the 'active offender' is a…

Wait. I've lost track of something somewhere. What was Minski doing on Epstein's party island?
Post reply on HN