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

Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

techrights.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 943 posts

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#251

Post by yongjik »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #8

I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…

There's a difference between supporting people struggling with, let's say, alcoholism, and hiring an alcoholic as your head of PR so that he can throw up on people in front of camera.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#252

Post by seba_dos1 »

Avshalom wrote: post #245
gizmo686 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diagnosed asperg here; would probably be autistic if I got diagnosed today. If I appear scrupulously kind to you, it is because I am compensating. If I appear emotionally intelligent to you, it is because I had to learn what is literally instinct to most people. At least for me, I am able to compensate effectively and pass in most social situations, but it is exhausting. When I read RMS's writing that lead to the con…

Not to be like a patronizing son of a bitch here but: that you choose to be kind does not make you less kind. that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real. that you willingly exhaust yourself exercising those skills is absolutely the opposite of being an asshole.

I would say the point is that it's extremely easy to unwillingly appear as an asshole if you have to put an extraordinary amount of effort into not appearing as one just because you don't operate based on the same social constructs as most of other people do by default.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#253

Post by zeruch »

bobsled wrote: post #194
zeruch wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just neurodivergence, but its that he recognizes where he jabs people and pretty much admits he doesn't care. I once had this conversation about with with ESR and I remember him saying "RMS doesn't care about the 'social overhead' of most person to person interactions" and so he kind of does his own normative preferences, thinking that because he finds them ideal, that others shouldn't be offended....but the…

I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history.

"I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time"

I do. How the hell do you think I figured it out for RMS? That same critical filtering can happen not just across time, but across various axes of context.

I didn't say that he's "irredeemable" but that the constant hagiographic/endless forgiveness for his chronic boorishness by his acolytes is annoying and serves no benefit.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#254

Post by boomboomsubban »

themacguffinman wrote: post #230
boomboomsubban wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this. "You should abandon any other ideals you have when working for our ideological project."

The point of an ideological project (or any project, really) is to try and get everyone pulling in the same direction. GNU/FSF is an organization for one specific ideal: free software. It's not intended as a vehicle for any random ideal people care about.

>It's not intended as a vehicle for any random ideal people care about.

Who used it like that? Stallman's comments happened outside the organization, the tweet was from someone I think unrelated to the project. I can understand keeping other ideals out of the project, but in context you're telling people not to express other ideals.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#255

Post by ethbr0 »

yakaccount4 wrote: post #203
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why would someone choose to be an ass - or generally choose to be unlikable?

I think there are a lot of people out there that enjoy being an ass. You can even be rich by being an ass, like the Fox News anchors.

The people you're thinking of are Fox News personalities or opinions.

They do have a straight news org that isn't terrible, but they blur the line and fail to disclose when you're watching opinion and when you're watching news.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#256

Post by spurgu »

stephenr wrote: post #233
moistbar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he didn't. He defended a dead person from accusations of pedophilia and had quotes from it taken tremendously out of context.

Yes, he did, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216

I find it refreshing to see someone willing to talk and think about these taboo kind of subjects. Myself I think it (sexual interaction) boils down to mutual consent, but there's obviously an age where a person cannot grasp the scope of what they're consenting to. And necrophilia fails this definition since consent is impossible (unless written in a will).

And now having looked into what he was actually accused of, of trying to imply that a sexual "assault" didn't necessarily happen, it's just strengthening my view that this "wokeness" is getting way out of hand in today's society.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#257

Post by cambalache »

megous wrote: post #200
ramraj07 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the right to attempt to silence or ostracise anyone for anything. Whether or not it’s successful depends on the situation and climate of the world at that time. He has the right to say whatever he wants to say as well. He wasn’t jailed for it just fired for it. Ask him to suck it up and then everyone here can also do the same thing instead of crying a river. Also, please try to show a single example of a perso…

Maybe you can tell us what's so magical about the age 18, that warrants calling people who support lower age limits pedophiles. (it doesn't even match the psychiatric definition) Brain is not fully developed by age 18 anyway, not by a long shot, and there's no obvious developmental milestone there either, like puberty, or whatever.

Exactly , on one hand you have an age when most humans are capable of conceiving and have fully developed secondary sexual traits (nature's way to say a person is sexual mature) , say around 14/15 and on the other hand you have the age of a fully "developed" brain, around 25, when at least in theory a person is mature enough for all intents and purposes.

18 tries to establish a sensible balance from both extremes, but there is nothing magical or moral about it when compared with 17 or 19 or whatever in than range.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#258

Post by yongjik »

We've all heard of the bus factor. Software project isn't a one-man show. There's no shortage of brilliant pioneers handing the baton to someone else or just sliding into obscurity for any number of reasons (e.g., got bored, found another passion, started a new project, gone off the rail, etc.). People no longer care about ESR's opinions, and that's OK. There's no reason FSF should need Stallman's continued presence - it's a software advocacy group, not a cult.

I just find it frustrating that Stallman is considered beyond reproach, because he wrote something great decades ago, when his contribution in the past 20 years or so was hardly irreplaceable. Almost makes me wonder if he's being held as champion because he is an asshole who can't talk to women without creeping them out.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#259

Post by ethbr0 »

nostrademons wrote: post #143
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why would someone choose to be an ass - or generally choose to be unlikable?

It's usually a matter of priorities. Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them. Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually haras…

And I guess part of my question was that what you said (pretty close to my own understanding of the definitions) is predicated on piercing the veil of intent.

Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us.

And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#260

Post by gizmo686 »

Avshalom wrote: post #245
gizmo686 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diagnosed asperg here; would probably be autistic if I got diagnosed today. If I appear scrupulously kind to you, it is because I am compensating. If I appear emotionally intelligent to you, it is because I had to learn what is literally instinct to most people. At least for me, I am able to compensate effectively and pass in most social situations, but it is exhausting. When I read RMS's writing that lead to the con…

Not to be like a patronizing son of a bitch here but: that you choose to be kind does not make you less kind. that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real. that you willingly exhaust yourself exercising those skills is absolutely the opposite of being an asshole.

As I said, I can pass. My point is that other people making me put in the work to pass are being assholes. The irony of them doing so in the name of diversity and inclusion is not lost on me.

> that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real.

That is a rather technical statement, that would be dependent on exactly what you mean by "emotional intelligence". Relying on general intelligence to do tasks that most people accomplish with more specialized brain power is certainly different, regardless of if you want to classify it as emotional intelligence or not.

Post reply on HN