Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Richard Stallman

geoff.greer.fm

471–480 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#471
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your particular flavour of groupthink and no other? Nice thought policing there.

Yes, we are saying that only people who subscribe to the "don't rape children" flavour of groupthink should be respected in public discourse.

you're completely misrepresenting the point.

That leaders should ascribe to societal norms is not always a good outcome. If you want to have revolution, revolutionaries needs to be in place of power/leadership. A society needs to have a mechanism to have such revolutions, or stagnate.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can have whatever controversial opinions he wants. Not without losing his job, apparently.

Yes? Is it surprising to you that words can have consequences up to and including your employers no longer wanting to employ you?

The problem with your line of thinking is that it discourages people from expressing their opinions if they deviate from the opinion of the majority.

If people need to be concerned about having their lives ruined over what they write in an email, or an online forum, can’t you see what kind of chilling effect this has?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, basically, exactly what the article says, a big nothing. The plants thing is stupid, rms doesn't hate plants. Sarah Mei appears to have no special reason to hate rms, shes a well known person who is extremely negative about anyone in software who's said anything offensive, including Linus, etc.

>The plants thing is stupid, rms doesn't hate plants. Source? I have no reason to disbelieve the claim, this discussion on Wikipedia seems to correlate it too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_... Besides dismissing one person at face value... is that all you have to say about these?

Well... An anonymous source, from the internet, which itself had heard of this only through another party. Dismissing unreliable sources like that is a safe default, no?

But more to the matter at hand, Stallman himself has a story about him smelling on plants, albeit dead: https://stallman.org/articles/texas.html

So, the far more reliable source seems to suggest that, indeed, he doesn't fear plants.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can have whatever controversial opinions he wants. Not without losing his job, apparently.

Yes? Is it surprising to you that words can have consequences up to and including your employers no longer wanting to employ you?

How about "looks". Is it surprising to you that physical aspect can have consequences up to and including your employers no longer wanting to employ you?

Because what you said is such a broad generalization, that it feels "obviously true". But if you object to a person not being hired because she's black (although that's personally reasonable in some very limited circumstances) - then maybe you should object too for a person being dismissed on words completely unrelated to the work he was supposed to perform.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#475
post #213
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".

And at what point did Stallamn ever say that "raping children" was ok? There are very few with that mindset and they certainly haven't shown themselves here so I don't understand why you highlight it other than to try and coerce others into joining the witch hunt.

What stallman pointed out was the inaccurate definition of a specific term and possibly wanting a fair and accurate description of the events of someone he knew. He's previously taken issue with inconsistency which could place and 17 year old in prison on their 18th birthday if they're already in a relationship with someone even born just a few days apart depending on which country they're in. He also stressed that placing Minsky at the same level as Epstien is wrong unless there's evidence Minsky was completely in on the deal (which there seems to be none as far as I'm aware).

The many other things seem to be lacking in evidence. The earlier point of women unwilling to report men in high positions just means a lack of evidence thus no justice can be had. It's the same as not reporting a robbery. Nobody can do anything if nobody knows it ever happened (outside of those involved).

I do agree that there should be some work within helping victims report without feeling as vulnrable to the point of keeping it to themselves but I don't think media outlash is the right tool for this. Nor do I think trying to socially hang those that comment on the topic is the right thing to do. All it does is prevent the much needed discussion around what the terms actually mean and if we can be more accurate in their definitiion to provide a better framework for dealing with such cases.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is complete garbage. I couldn't even read it in its entirety. > If there are a large number of people in the United States who think that child pornography and sexual intercourse with minors should be legalized, this is the first I’m hearing of it He never even said that! This is just another SJW warrior pissed off about the fact that the reality differs from the fiction she has created for herself. Peop…

"[Possession of child pornography] should be legal as long as no one is coerced." What do you think he really meant when he stated this?

It can mean for example, that having CP on your PC although highly immoral, should not be punished by law,reserving that fate for distributors and especially creators. This is an arbitrary distinction by law and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it.

A similar argument is already in practice in many places where illegal drugs possession is not punished (up to certain limits) but drug production is. Or when offering prostitution is not punished but requesting it is. Mind I am not saying they are exactly the same, I only showing that legal distinction is arbitrary and people should be free to comment on it.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#477
post #324

[deleted]

See, what this post represents (and all these upvotes) is that there is a number of people who disagree with you and with "cancel culture". We do not believe in taboos as well: everything can be rationally debated and gut reactions are not only detrimental to the advancement of mankind, but is actually a very powerful "dumbficator" of science and logic. The people who should feel ashamed are those who spread this toxic culture of watching other's online comments in order to ban them from the rest of the "civilized world" (as these people generally put it), effectively hindering diversity; usually in the name of some social or ethnic minority. There is no defense to your shunning attitude and it is the very reason populists are winning governments the world over. Meanwhile, real abusers (eg. MIT staff who let the real abuse happen) were completely forgotten about because of this hysteria you people fomented. You're part of the problem you're trying to solve.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#478

Sigh. No. It's not just about one incidence of some mistakenly pedantic comments, as has been made clear by many, many people. It's a pattern of behaviour over years combined with no interest in listening to other people or accepting that he might be in the wrong. His behaviour towards women in particular has resulted in a lot of people sharing stories of his behaviour which, on their own, should be enough for someon…

> pattern of behaviour over years

Let's say I found 10 times over two decades where you did something inappropriate (I think the average person would be a saint if this was the number of times they erred in two decades) and put them all into a single article. Would that mean you have a "pattern of behavior"? It would certainly present as one. Or merely that you are human and occasionally say or do dumb, inappropriate things? It seems at this case that all of the "pattern of behavior" was speech in this case, and not particularly egregious in any instance.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[Possession of child pornography] should be legal as long as no one is coerced." What do you think he really meant when he stated this?

It can mean for example, that having CP on your PC although highly immoral, should not be punished by law,reserving that fate for distributors and especially creators. This is an arbitrary distinction by law and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it. A similar argument is already in practice in many places where illegal drugs possession is not punished (u…

> and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it.

I think this is the crux of the difference here. I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever. That's an absurd proposition to me. Maybe that's why I seem to be talking past people about this.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can have whatever controversial opinions he wants. Not without losing his job, apparently.

Yes? Is it surprising to you that words can have consequences up to and including your employers no longer wanting to employ you?

So would you agree if your employer fires you because of this chain of posts?
Post reply on HN