In Defense of Richard Stallman • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#261

Post by wozniacki » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:24 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 agree with everything you said.

I just hope that we applied the same rationale in an even-keeled and level-headed manner in other cases where similar concerns are raised.

I hope we don't make exceptions for our favorite pet causes no matter how close to the heart and rule against those who were found to have either voiced opinions or acted in an antagonistic manner to such causes, even when those decisions are thorny and sentimental.[1][2][3]

[1] Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation/m...

[2] Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns in wake of backlash to Prop 8

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/03/mozilla-c...

[3] Did Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Deserve To Be Removed From His Position?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ce...

edit: typo

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#262

Post by rusk » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:24 AM UTC

foldr wrote: post #171

blowski wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. If Stallman was a charming, charismatic, handsome guy with a square jaw and good hair the whole conversation would probably have a different lens placed on it.

Hot, charming people get away with things that ugly awkward people don't. However, the lesson to be drawn from this isn't that it's ok to do those things. Rather, it's that life is unfair.

except that Stallman was let off for years ... I think people often just let him off because he wasn't "Hot, charming" and they maybe felt a certain amount of pity for him ...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#263

Post by EdiX » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:24 AM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #114

sergiosgc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. 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. By all means, point me to a real abuse scenario by Stallman. I like being prove…

> 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…

Why is John Gruber reprinting anonymous emails that are clearly lying? Richard Stallman was never married so he never had an "open marriage" either. Given that the person writing the email didn't even bother to verify this easily verified detail I suspect the rest is also a work of fiction.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#264

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:24 AM UTC

smhost wrote: post #232

rvz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. You have just outlined the double-speak of the SV technocracy, which have imposed these hidden codes on those that they disagree with. Mind you that the media has now amplified this and have used all of this to create a new enemy called Richard Stallman. As long as this appalling cancel-culture behaviour stops, he certainly won't be the last one to fall victim to these purity tests. Absolutely hypocritical i…

from reading just this comment, i would have assumed that stallman was stripped of all his land and titles and made to starve under a bridge. what really happened was that he went from holding leadership positions in three prominent institutions to just one. it's easy to have strong feelings about these issues, but let's try to keep things in perspective.

Apparently to zero, and if we're to believe the article, he's been made to starve under the bridge too (if I'm to believe the countless HN threads about homelessness in the US, this is how being homeless looks like).

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#265

Post by spats1990 » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:24 AM UTC

archi42 wrote: post #214

spats1990 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On his website, for example, Stallman says that he "reject[s] the term sexual assault" completely.[1] ~edit: I have included the full quote below as I did not intend to twist/misrepresent in any way. Stallman writes: " The term is applied to a broad range of actions, ranging from stealing a kiss to rape, as well as other things in between. It acts as propaganda for treating them the same. There seems to be an excepti…

I think the whole point of the Stallman discussion as of lately is that people only decide to read what they want to read, ignoring context. > I don't think that rape should be treated like stealing a kiss, so I reject the term "sexual assault" completely. From my understanding, he disagrees with the term because it is imprecise, and the greater of two evils might be mixed up with the lesser - with the result that th…

I've replied upthread and edited my post to include the full quote. I wasn't trying to twist his words.

As I wrote in my reply to the post you're referring to, I seem to think that the term sexual assault is necessarily imprecise--but in another sense, it isn't imprecise at all, as all the acts described by it share a single commonality, which is lack of consent.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#266

Post by swalsh » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:25 AM UTC

smhost wrote: post #232

rvz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. You have just outlined the double-speak of the SV technocracy, which have imposed these hidden codes on those that they disagree with. Mind you that the media has now amplified this and have used all of this to create a new enemy called Richard Stallman. As long as this appalling cancel-culture behaviour stops, he certainly won't be the last one to fall victim to these purity tests. Absolutely hypocritical i…

from reading just this comment, i would have assumed that stallman was stripped of all his land and titles and made to starve under a bridge. what really happened was that he went from holding leadership positions in three prominent institutions to just one. it's easy to have strong feelings about these issues, but let's try to keep things in perspective.

He lost his job from this. It is a big deal.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#267

Post by akabaka777 » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:25 AM UTC

my friend and i use the N word multiple times in our conversation or in chat. None of us are black. Context matters... Now if one day somebody hacks my phone and says i am a racist by leaking parts of my messages- is that ethical? how far are we from censoring others thoughts?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#268

Post by rusk » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:26 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #110

sergiosgc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again. 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. By all means, point me to a real abuse scenario by Stallman. I like being prove…

> If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness. If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader. That doesn't remove anything from their achievements and abilities to contribute or to spread new ideas.…

but but ... he was tolerated ... people were complaining about him for years ...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#269

Post by op00to » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:26 AM UTC

meerita wrote: post #242

op00to wrote: post #225

Do you think it’s ok for adults to have sex with children?

No, I am not. But what proof do you have Minsky had sex with a minor? I didn't see it. I think Stallman didn't see it.

Who needs proof about Minsky? RMS said he thinks the children couldn’t be sexually assaulted because they wanted it. You’re defending this creep? Do you agree that it’s not kiddie rape if the kids don’t complain?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#270

Post by reitanqild » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:26 AM UTC

Insanity wrote: post #80

gunibert wrote: post #51

As an observer from the outside i have to say, that i am as an "privileged white male" will pay much attention to what i will say in the future. This is my conclusion about what happened here and happened to Linus. The feeling that you have to be super sensitive will close more doors then before - prove me wrong.

To Linus Torvalds? Wasn't he just temporarily absent for one release due to being 'abusive on pull requests'? Because AFAIK he did not get as much backlash as RMS is getting at the moment, nor did he lose any position somewhere.

IIRC rumor I've seen has it he's extremely careful in things like never being alone with certain people etc.