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

31–40 of 357 posts

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#31

Post by esotericn »

vkou wrote: post #29
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…

I don't really have an opinion on this, but I found your sentence interesting:

> rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of how, say, their right to speech should be restricted

Isn't that a contradiction in and of itself?

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#32

Post by danso »

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”

Someone emailed an event for protesting Minsky, and Stallman accused her of wrongly inflating the term "sexual assault" when using it to refer to Minsky and Epstein. Stallman bends over backwards for Minsky, saying that he shouldn't be automatically to blame if Epstein forced someone to have sex with him.

It's little different than the absurd pretzel that Lessig bent himself into when trying to defend his friend Joi Ito [0]:

> Q: Doesn’t it make sense to you that people would say someone who is taking money from and cozying up with a guy who is a pedophile and who is targeting young women, maybe he shouldn’t lead an institution that includes women?

> Lessig: I’m not sure it describes the case, and more importantly, what about the institution?

> Q: What do you mean it doesn’t describe the case?

> L: I don’t know about the “cozying up to.”

> Q: Going to his house, being socially in his orbit, taking money from him.

> L: In the context of raising money — just like you would go up there and meet with him in the context of an interview...

> L: When you say that he is cozying up to him, that’s something very different from what I understand actually happened, which is: Joi, in the context of his job for the M.I.T. Media Lab, built a relationship with one of the people he’s raising money from.

I don't begrudge Lessig and Stallman for attempting to apply what they think is logic and rationality in approaching these topics. I absolutely despise them for their hypocrisy in the way they refuse to acknowledge how they themselves are tainted by irrationality when defending their friends.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/lessig-epstein-i...

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#33

Post by vkou »

esotericn wrote: post #31
vkou wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't really have an opinion on this, but I found your sentence interesting: > rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of how, say, their right to speech should be restricted Isn't that a contradiction in and of itself?

Only from the perspective of one of the two sides in the debate.

The other side thinks that it's perfectly good and proper to not have a rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of reprehensible topics, and would rather the first side not pull them into it.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#34

Post by esotericn »

loser777 wrote: post #26
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).

Could you clarify what you mean by 'face value' in this sense?

I guess you mean that a position taken for the purposes of intellectual discourse (e.g. devil's advocate) could just as well be the person's "real" position?

Is there actually a difference in practice, if they're not in a position to act upon it anyway? (Or is the issue that by engaging in the discourse they are acting upon it?)

I think I understand your basic point - everyone who's a public figure is subject to the opinions of a huge number of people who might want to attack them (politically, physically, whatever), and that limiting expression of opinion is a way to protect against this. But doesn't that ultimately result in all public figures being "soft", "tame", basically politicians?

> “I have to confess, when me and my friend, sort of, used to run through the fields of wheat – the farmers weren’t too pleased about that.” - Theresa May, UK prime minister, when asked of the naughtiest thing she'd ever done

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#35

Post by geekone »

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…

Wow yeah I was not aware. Definitely not a good look and those older comments are completely reprehensible and nonsensical to me.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#37

Post by partialrecall »

ceejayoz wrote: post #30
partialrecall wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So you believe Stallman's statements indicate he's a pedophile, not merely somebody with a long and established history of being tactless? Because I'd say there is a hell of a lot more evidence that he's tactless due to being neuroatypical. Maybe that makes him a bad leader, but it surely doesn't make him evil.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#38

Post by partialrecall »

vkou wrote: post #33
esotericn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really have an opinion on this, but I found your sentence interesting: > rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of how, say, their right to speech should be restricted Isn't that a contradiction in and of itself?

Only from the perspective of one of the two sides in the debate. The other side thinks that it's perfectly good and proper to not have a rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of reprehensible topics, and would rather the first side not pull them into it.

Are you referring to a particular debate, or debates in general? If the later, I strongly disagree. There are many debates in which both sides argue rationally in good faith.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#39

Post by ceejayoz »

partialrecall wrote: post #37
ceejayoz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So you believe Stallman's statements indicate he's a pedophile, not merely somebody with a long and established history of being tactless? Because I'd say there is a hell of a lot more evidence that he's tactless due to being neuroatypical. Maybe that makes him a bad leader, but it surely doesn't make him evil.

> So you believe Stallman's statements indicate he's a pedophile...

I think you're mixing me up with another commenter.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#40

Post by partialrecall »

ceejayoz wrote: post #39
partialrecall wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you believe Stallman's statements indicate he's a pedophile, not merely somebody with a long and established history of being tactless? Because I'd say there is a hell of a lot more evidence that he's tactless due to being neuroatypical. Maybe that makes him a bad leader, but it surely doesn't make him evil.

> So you believe Stallman's statements indicate he's a pedophile... I think you're mixing me up with another commenter.

You're right, I apologize.
Post reply on HN