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

In Defense of Richard Stallman

geoff.greer.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#311

Post by monsieurbanana »

magicalhippo wrote: post #173
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.

One should indeed be careful about what one says at work. When at work it's very different from when I'm at home with my mates. Me and my coworkers have to share space, and so the dynamics are not the same. If one of my mates gets hurt by my jokes at his expense, he can just decide not meet me. At work, my coworkers don't really have a choice. On a related note, the Mercedes F1 team just fired four employees, apparen…

At home with your mates? What about streaming with your mates? Or in a public conference unrelated to your work with your mates? Or just anywhere where you could be recorded?

The kind of people that grossly misinterpreted (and I use these words because my English isn't good enough to use stronger words while remaining polite) Stallman's comment about Minksy won't care about the situation or context.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#312

Post by roenxi »

DanBC wrote: post #213
toxik wrote: post #45

Humanity is converging on ideological monoculture. There is one correct way to think, and if you're dumb enough to step outside of those bounds, people _will_ come after you, and destroy whatever you have. One comment here even suggested that RMS is a rapist in so many words, really? I submit that you cannot have innovation without inconvenient characters. You must allow a plurality of ideas and ideals to exist, even…

> There is one correct way to think, Yes, when it comes to "is raping children okay?" there is only one way to think - "No, raping children is not okay".

But, and this is important, there is no natural law algorithm for working out what the words "raping" and "children" mean.

People have to occasionally talk about difficult issues to find out. There isn't a common moral or legal standard about what either of those words mean on the margins, in globally or in the US.

If people can't voice opinions that are wrong, they have no easy way of finding out why those opinions are wrong.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#313

Post by pflenker »

op00to wrote: post #269
meerita wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Did you read the article? Because it makes clear that this is not what RMS said, providing the quote from the mail in question.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#314

Post by barry-cotter »

shademaan wrote: post #208
barry-cotter wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s autistic. He probably gives almost everyone he comes into contact with the creeps. Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible. I doubt Stallman was any more unpleasant to women than to men, or showed any greater or lesser social graces. He has never, ever held back about any of his opinions or actions. I’m sure you could get him to admit to thin…

>Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, Oh this is hilarious. Do you realize how many people -- not just men -- in CS, physics, mathematics are autistic, especially in places like MIT? Places like that are teeming with autistic people who somehow manage not to make their students and colleagues uncomfortable. I'll even be so bold as to claim neurotypicals are actually a minority in some of those subjects. Th…

I’m not saying he’s oppressed. He’s a super giant nerd and people don’t like nerds. Other nerds don’t like nerds. No one owes anyone else shit. Normal people don’t like fat or ugly people either, and avoid them too.

The idea that autistic people do not make allistic people uncomfortable is completely at odds with my experience. The more obviously autistic someone is the less allistic people want to be near them. People who are crushing monomaniacal bores with poor social skills are tolerated if they have some valuable skills, keep to themselves, or parrot the party line.

Autistic people can make allistic people uncomfortable by sitting quietly in the corner of a room. They look funny, they stim, they do that flappy thing with their hands, or rock.

Stallman wasn’t oppressed. He was booted for being a huge outspoken driven asshole with no political nous, but he’s been a huge outspoken equal opportunity asshole for decades.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#315

Post by meerita »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #256
meerita wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What posts are you talking about? He didn't state anything related to child sex, plus, Eptein wasn't only offering that so it is unclear that Minsk had sex with minors. It's obvious that Stallman condemn that, but to his eyes, nothing is crystal clear and he is not the kind of person who will fall so easily in any logic fallacy. I think people is mob lawing him without any reason more than "he just stated some facts"…

“I am sceptical 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.” “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“

He is not stating pedophilia is good. If you assume he is doing that, then you don't understand the claims he does. (i dissagree with what he posted).

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#316

Post by klingonopera »

Insanity wrote: post #192
klingonopera wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this imply that proprietary software vendors were pushing for his resignation? I mean, yeah, sure, but in all honesty, I never considered the FSF to be that influential. If anything, I'd almost agree on the fact that RMS made (as ironic as this sounds) selling free software more difficult than if it was any standard corporate drone in his place. He's a great idealist, but he's not really good at selling thing…

Yeah, his appeal to ideals might work for some (it does appeal to me). But surely that's not the best way of selling things to the majority of the population, let alone companies. I'm tempted to agree with you that he might have made it more difficult. It's not just the message you use to sell something, it's also the way in which. If people associate FSF too much with RMS it could be harmful for FSF, because they'll…

Yeah, from the looks of things, the FSF might become more of a threat to proprietary software vendors now, if they have new charismatic leader (at the risk of selling-out on their ideals, though).

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#317

Post by sgt »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #258
sgt wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to be pedantic, but we're not exactly talking about children here. I believe the girl was 17 and probably gave the impression (when put in a group with other girls) to be older. And 17 is not illegal in most countries, so morally that age by itself is and should not be a major issue.

I wasn't referring to those posts, but these for example: “I am sceptical 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.” “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophili…

He's entitled to have an opinion. He's not promoting pedophilia, merely stating that he's skeptical to the current opinions about pedophilia. It could be that in 300 years from now, pedophilia or rather hebephilia (what most people mean) is perfectly accepted by society. I honestly hope it won't, and I don't agree with RMS on these points, but he's allowed to be skeptical.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#318

Post by viraptor »

twelvechairs wrote: post #274
viraptor wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of a leader is that they do/present something that gathers followers. If the followers say "no, that's not ok", they're by definition not a good leader anymore (or not for that group of people - RMS can definitely create an FSF clone with people who accept him). There's lots of leaders who love the status quo and organise people around it. No challenging needed. (for example priests being leaders for a smal…

There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which I can't disagree with more. This isn't the followers saying "no, that's not ok", this is large institutions saying "no" on behalf of a vocal few.

Mu. You asked if leader is defined by challenging things. I gave an alternative definition with an example of leaders not challenging things. (and sure, there are also those who do challenge) No-platforming is a completely different topic, and I have expressed no opinions about it.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#319

Post by CathedralBorrow »

meerita wrote: post #315
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I am sceptical 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.” “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“

He is not stating pedophilia is good. If you assume he is doing that, then you don't understand the claims he does. (i dissagree with what he posted).

No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine. Which is what I said.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#320

Post by eternalban »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #201
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 for one agree 100% with you here. And I don't really know what angers me more - the explicit desire to destroy a person's life, expressed by many including the original blogger that started this mess, or the relentless denial of reality, the willingness to repeat bald-faced lies, even though the source material was accessible and widely quoted. Until this debacle I didn't realize so many people in our industry can…

> the relentless denial of reality

This is a tried and true tactic and it works. Issue certainly is not "reading comprehension".

How many fingers?

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/18.html

Post reply on HN