In Defense of Richard Stallman • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#181

Post by gadders » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:08 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #76

Diversity -- but no diversity of opinion... Inclusiveness -- but let's ostracize the non-conforming aspie... Fairness -- but let's fire people or make them resign from unrelated positions for their personal opinions, because obviously all of a person's life should serve as a big PR, and god forbid they don't play the role 24/7. Someone might call them for it on Twitter, and what could their employee/organization do o…

I think you're right to criticise "cancel culture", but I think (absent of actual law breaking), it needs to be as absolute of free speech.

i.e. people shouldn't just protest it for people they like, but people they hate or vehemently disagree with as well.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#182

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:08 AM UTC

FeepingCreature wrote: post #124

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.

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#183

Post by DanBC » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:08 AM UTC

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #155

jimhefferon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me not credible that a 70 year old Minsky believed that a quite young lady would, on minutes of meeting him, be so attracted that she would be anxious to be intimate.

According to eyewitnesses he turned down the advances...

but that's irrelevant to Stallman's comments, because RMS starts by assuming that Minsky did have sex with the trafficked coerced child.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#184

Post by klingonopera » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:08 AM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #152

klingonopera wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't get X good thing without Y bad behaviour. Consider the following: Humans have limited capacity, thus time, money and energy spent limiting Y inhibits resources available to creating X.

While life is short, it is long enough that people can learn not to be assholes / jerks IMHO: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule * https://hbr.org/2007/03/why-i-wrote-the-no-asshole-rule * https://www.td.org/insights/dont-tolerate-brilliant-jerks * https://www.inc.com/jim-schleckser/why-netflix-doesn-t-toler...

1) There's a reason drill sergeants aren't exactly known to be friendly...

2) Not all people have an easy time learning not to be an asshole (and some literally can't). Thus, the resource-cost varies.

3) If one is just blunt, people can often misinterpret that as being an asshole. But factually, the blunt person is just blunt, and the "victim" is just disgruntled, which, at least in my opinion, makes the "victim" the actual asshole if he decides to judge the blunt person because of that.

There are certainly many assholes who deserve to be criticized, but we should allow the benefit of doubt to all parties first.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#185

Post by foldr » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:09 AM UTC

isoprophlex wrote: post #103

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring a legal age of consent, refusing to accept the accepted definitions of assault and rape, and claiming they were actually willing are emphatically not just "socially awkward".

No. Wrong. You, and many others, seem incapable of parsing basic sentences. RMS claimed it was plausible that she presented herself to Minsky as willing, due to coercion by Epstein. There's a big difference.

And what could be more normal than an 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island willingly offering free sex to a man in his 70s? How could Minsky possibly have suspected that anything was amiss?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#186

Post by efdee » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:09 AM UTC

jimhefferon wrote: post #133

efdee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming they were actually willing and claiming they presented themselves as actually willing are two very different things. These are very dangerous accusations you are throwing around - you might do well to stick to what he actually said and wrote.

It seems to me not credible that a 70 year old Minsky believed that a quite young lady would, on minutes of meeting him, be so attracted that she would be anxious to be intimate.

Possibly, but that is not the point. The point is that RMS never said the victims were willing, which is the quote (or one of the quotes) he's being burnt for.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#187

Post by throw0101a » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:09 AM UTC

sergiosgc wrote: post #150

throw0101a wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every episode I read about fell into the category of "socially awkward adult male". If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. Perhaps you need to read about more episodes: > I worked 10 years ago at VA Linux which had Richard Stallman on its board of directors. You might have heard that Stallman applied his open source ideas to his publicly…

I'm sorry for the specific request, but it must be a first hand account of an event. This second hand account can easily be the result of RMS being a difficult person to be around, for any number of reasons, constructed via word of mouth into a sexual issue. I haven't read the description of anything that resembles sexual abuse by RMS. (edited to remove an unintended reference to sexual assault)

> I'm sorry for the specific request, but it must be a first hand account of an event.

The excerpt is from an e-mail that John Gruber received in 2011. It is the written testimony of someone who witnessed the events in question first hand.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#188

Post by anjbe » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:09 AM UTC

equalunique wrote: post #105

youdontknowtho wrote: post #25

The article says you don't get the free software movement without RMS. What about BSD?

BSD is open source, but not "free" in the GNU sense. A GNU license keeps the software free. BSD license keeps the distributor & developer "free," but not the software itself.

Even the FSF acknowledges that permissive licenses meet their definition of “free software.” You’re confusing free software with copyleft.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#189

Post by ndury » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:09 AM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #127

lagadu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 u…

Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?'

AFAIK there are plenty of high positioned people in important positions whom have a special preference to something. Whether it be a kink or a total different view/approach on certain topics.

Does that mean we're going to hunt down every one in a high position because they think outside of the box? Because they have a preference to something society seems not normal? Does that mean we'll need to hunt down every thought leader/high positioned CEO/CFO/COO/board member with public appearance that enjoys the occassional whipping?

This topic is pretty disturbing to me personally. Qualified, intelligent people are criticized/publicly shamed for having thoughts/opinions/preferences which have absolutely nothing to do with their occupation.

It feels to me as if we're, as a society, doing anything we can to remove people who think/feel differently from what they're actually good at/dedicated their life to. My thoughts/opinions might not stroke with what people here have written, if what has been reported is true the behavior is not OK but does that mean the man needs to be removed from a position he dedicated his life to?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#190

Post by claudeganon » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:09 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #76

Diversity -- but no diversity of opinion... Inclusiveness -- but let's ostracize the non-conforming aspie... Fairness -- but let's fire people or make them resign from unrelated positions for their personal opinions, because obviously all of a person's life should serve as a big PR, and god forbid they don't play the role 24/7. Someone might call them for it on Twitter, and what could their employee/organization do o…

I’m not sure if this is just more grandstanding of the “SJWs run amok” variety, but in case you’re unaware, his recent comments were just the tip of the iceberg:

https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

Someone else downthread also linked about how a woman he worked with on a Linux project had to be warned of his arrival ahead of time so she could leave because of his aggressive advances toward her.