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

Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#31

Post by tzs »

CPLX wrote: post #14
kjksf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perfect example of mob mentality in action. At no point Stallman was defending sex with minors. And yet, here you are, extremely offended at him for something he didn't say.

"I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be ba…

The first quote isn't defending sex with minors. It's criticizing inconsistent definitions of minor. Do you disagree that it makes no sense morally for, say a 19 year old and 17 year old having sex together to be OK in one place, and rape if they had first moved a few feet over, if that movement happens to cross a border where the laws change?

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#32

Post by pavel_lishin »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #28
pavel_lishin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SJWs are out of control and doing real damage [citation needed]

We're commenting on an article about Richard Stallman being removed for something he did not say. That's the damage I'm talking about.

Seems like he's being removed for being an asshole for years and years, and for things he very explicitly did say, repeatedly, for years. And this seems very much like a "straw that broke the camel's back".

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#33

Post by pbiggar »

mikeash wrote: post #24
scrumper wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the way it should be? And if not, are you saying that there's no point in arguing for something better?

Maybe not, but this seems like a terrible way to advocate for something better. Thousands of people get unjustly fired every day for much worse reasons than this. Why is this one the one to fight?

Right! There's millions of injustices in this world and you're fighting for a misogynist who has pushed women out of tech for decades? What are your priorities?

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#34

Post by pbiggar »

scrumper wrote: post #4
pbiggar wrote: post #2

The author expects people to fully understand stallmans world view and to thoroughly examine his position. However, the author did not pay the same regard to Salam G., the author of the original post reporting on the most recent of Stallmans shitty proclamations. The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman was fired, nor did he show he had done to work to try and get it. You can safely…

> The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman was fired... Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes: > The goals Selam G. seeks to advance are good ones. Institutions like MIT need to closely consider their past and present treatment of women. People at those institutions, and perhaps even Stallman himself, need to have their worst impulses checked, or possibly even be removed…

> Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes:

I feel confident with my assessment. He showed no indication that he understood the current movement to hold powerful men accountable for their actions. For example, where's the due process for the women Stallman excluded by his horrible behaviour for decades?

Stallman went down for being a creepy perv for decades. He should have gone down for one of the many lines he crossed before today. Eventually, when you give a creep enough passes he'll say something so creepy it's indefensible, Yet here you are trying.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#35

Post by mikeash »

pbiggar wrote: post #33
mikeash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not, but this seems like a terrible way to advocate for something better. Thousands of people get unjustly fired every day for much worse reasons than this. Why is this one the one to fight?

Right! There's millions of injustices in this world and you're fighting for a misogynist who has pushed women out of tech for decades? What are your priorities?

I suspect it’s because the typical programmer can’t really put themselves in the shoes of a fast food worker who gets fired for refusing to clock out and keep working. But an eccentric techie with uncomfortable and unconventional views on sex hits way too close to home.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#36

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Are women coerced into doing and accepting things that they would rather not due to misogyny. Absolutely.

But they still have free will and a choice. At the end of the day, sexually harassed women make a Faustian bargain. They didn’t have to. But they did. It might be the devil but when you choose to consort with the devil, you play in hell.

A lot of times(admittedly not always), the solution is to walk away. Walk away. The damage to the ego can be dealt with and maybe even vindicated. But it’s wiser to walk away to a place of strength to strategize and wage a bloody war to win rather than engage in puny battles for fragile hollow victories. It’s easier to nurse a wounded ego and come back to fight another day than endure systemic harassment that rips your very spirit apart. Stupid battle of the sexes.

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#37

Post by fortran77 »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #28
pavel_lishin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SJWs are out of control and doing real damage [citation needed]

We're commenting on an article about Richard Stallman being removed for something he did not say. That's the damage I'm talking about.

And my very reasonable comment about it was flagged and removed because we can't have reasonable discussions on Hacker News because we all have to be woke!

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#38

Post by [deleted] »

mikeash wrote: post #12
scrumper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman was fired... Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes: > The goals Selam G. seeks to advance are good ones. Institutions like MIT need to closely consider their past and present treatment of women. People at those institutions, and perhaps even Stallman himself, need to have their worst impulses checked, or possibly even be removed…

Since when did anyone ever expect due process when being fired? This is a world where you can be fired for showing up 30 seconds late because of a road closure.

[deleted]

Re: Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’

#39

Post by scrumper »

mikeash wrote: post #24
scrumper wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the way it should be? And if not, are you saying that there's no point in arguing for something better?

Maybe not, but this seems like a terrible way to advocate for something better. Thousands of people get unjustly fired every day for much worse reasons than this. Why is this one the one to fight?

Should point out that we're both forgetting that Stallman actually resigned, though who knows under what pressure. So this entire debate is pretty moot. But for the sake of argument, we'll say he was fired.

So it seems like we agree that this particular aspect (snap firings) of the USA sucks. So why is this _not_ the one to fight? If we both think the core issue is a problem, it doesn't seem intellectually honest for one of us to say that a specific instance of that general concept doesn't count because the dude at the heart of it is scummy.

If you can build a strong and convincing argument that his termination is wrong, it'd be trivial to apply that argument to the case of the fast food worker. And therefore have a better shot at improving their lot.

Post reply on HN