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

21–30 of 357 posts

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#21

Post by fwip »

geekone wrote: post #14
jmull wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s definitely true. But I think the big problem for him is that his comments were quite troubling even in proper context.

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

Here's one:

"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

#23

Post by ceejayoz »

partialrecall wrote: post #20
fwip wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, this certainly isn't the first time that he's publicly said that he thinks "consenting pedophilia" is 100% fine, and it's not the first time that people have told him "Hey, don't say that, you're gonna get in trouble." At a certain point it stops looking like ignorance and stubbornness and more like he's got a horse in the race.

You know he's also recanted that shit, right? > and more like he's got a horse in the race. Has the mob now progressed to insinuating that he's a pedophile himself? Is that what the 'horse in the race' idiom means in this context?

Sure. He recanted those comments two days ago (after espousing them on his website at least between 2006 and 2013), and after his comments on the Epstein case started getting attention, which makes it look more like damage control than a genuine change in opinion.

https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#24

Post by teh_klev »

esotericn wrote: post #16

Is anyone else baffled by the idea that discussing something on an intellectual level, even related to a person, has to somehow be a 'defense' or an 'offense'? I've spent basically my entire life discussing things in the abstract. I'm not a politician, I don't make laws, and frankly I wouldn't want that power. To me it makes absolute sense that someone would attempt to "defend" even the most heinous person. It's weir…

I have, with the best most charitable reading of your post, no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps some context would be useful with regards to Stallman.

Edit: in my defence, is op defending Stallman, or Epstein? Honestly, I don't know how Epstein and Stallman are related. I don't follow Stallman's every statement he makes. I simply asked for some context and enlightenment in this headline and esotericn's comment.

edit: ok...finally some context from other commenters answering (finally) my question, which I think is this from 11th August 2019:

Jeffrey Epstein appears to have committed suicide in his cell. Or perhaps he was murdered — it is not unusual for prisoners to murder prisoners accused of sexual crimes.

Epstein was accused of trafficking: bringing people long distances on false pretenses and then pressured them into sex or prostitution. He also reportedly raped some of those people. I believe those accusations, and I think he deserved to be imprisoned.

Some of his victims were legally adult. Some were teenage minors. I don't think that makes any moral difference. I don't think rape is less wrong if the victim is over 16.

Ok maybe I'm really thick, how does this cause Stallman to resign? His language seems pretty much on par with newspaper of headlines in his "blog". I really don't have an axe to grind either way. I'm trying to get to the bottom of who said what?

Edit..again: so thanks to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990293 , this is the crux of the matter:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...

I've not read the full thread so don't have an opinion either way. If Minsky and Stallman were good friends then I can understand Stallman coming to his defence, especially when dead people can't give an account of themselves. That said I kinda feel Stallman's dug a bit of a hole for himself, and may need a bigger shovel to get out.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#25

Post by [deleted] »

melling wrote: post #6
arctux wrote: post #2

Related earlier post: > I want to respond to the misleading media coverage of messages I posted about Marvin Minsky's association with Jeffrey Epstein. The coverage totally mischaracterised my statements. > Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other inac…

I didn’t follow the story. Was Stallman taken out of context? Anyway, he probably should have know better than to weigh in. One’s well thought out response and subtle points can often turn out to have a few holes. In fact... “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged”

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#26

Post by loser777 »

esotericn wrote: post #16

Is anyone else baffled by the idea that discussing something on an intellectual level, even related to a person, has to somehow be a 'defense' or an 'offense'? I've spent basically my entire life discussing things in the abstract. I'm not a politician, I don't make laws, and frankly I wouldn't want that power. To me it makes absolute sense that someone would attempt to "defend" even the most heinous person. It's weir…

When you’re famous enough to be considered a “representative” of a community (e.g., “hacker culture” in the case of rms) then you should be ready for anything you say to be taken at face value. There’s all the incentive in the world to write a takedown and rake in the karma (or claps).

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#27

Post by mindslight »

What a disappointing course of events. I cannot fathom how an institution such as MIT can have such a thin spine. But I also couldn't fathom the first time I walked into a Sears in a long while (ca 2010) and saw an "online catalog" which merely searched Amazon's website.

I can't help but think this is the same creative destruction - rather than falling back to a core strength of traditional reputation, even a learning institution turns into the winds of its own destruction. Force out the type of person who specialized in software philosophy over social skills, in support of the type of person who politics. Because we're all in politics now.

(And for all his prescience, RMS still couldn't see Free Software ushering in lynch flash mobs, one of which would eventually go after him.)

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#28

Post by partialrecall »

ceejayoz wrote: post #23
partialrecall wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know he's also recanted that shit, right? > and more like he's got a horse in the race. Has the mob now progressed to insinuating that he's a pedophile himself? Is that what the 'horse in the race' idiom means in this context?

Sure. He recanted those comments two days ago (after espousing them on his website at least between 2006 and 2013), and after his comments on the Epstein case started getting attention, which makes it look more like damage control than a genuine change in opinion. https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

I'd say recent statements more accurately reflect somebody's current beliefs than old statements. Considering how badly he's been recently slandered by media outlets leaving out context and mischaracterizing his remarks, I am disturbed by your willingness to exclude that context from your previous comment.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#29

Post by vkou »

esotericn wrote: post #16

Is anyone else baffled by the idea that discussing something on an intellectual level, even related to a person, has to somehow be a 'defense' or an 'offense'? I've spent basically my entire life discussing things in the abstract. I'm not a politician, I don't make laws, and frankly I wouldn't want that power. To me it makes absolute sense that someone would attempt to "defend" even the most heinous person. It's weir…

It has been my experience that the people who most loudly defend rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of reprehensible ideas are often not interested in rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of how, say, their right to speech or, say, liberty should be restricted.

It's an odd twist of irony. Everyone seems to be able to be rational, intellectual, and level-headed, when the issue they are debating does not personally affect them.

Edit: Judging by the karmic sentiment, we are probably unable to have a rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of such a topic. Pity.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#30

Post by ceejayoz »

partialrecall wrote: post #28
ceejayoz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. He recanted those comments two days ago (after espousing them on his website at least between 2006 and 2013), and after his comments on the Epstein case started getting attention, which makes it look more like damage control than a genuine change in opinion. https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

I'd say recent statements more accurately reflect somebody's current beliefs than old statements. Considering how badly he's been recently slandered by media outlets leaving out context and mischaracterizing his remarks, I am disturbed by your willingness to exclude that context from your previous comment.

As a general rule, I tend to give more credit to consistent and freely offered opinions espoused over years than a sudden conversion immediately after a PR crisis. There's a famous saying: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
Post reply on HN