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

Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 580 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#501

Post by mjg59 »

meruru wrote: post #498
lolc wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be taken that way. But if "sexually" is omitted from "sexually assaulted" a statement can easily be misunderstood. If you add in the context that there was no direct accusation of sexual assault by the victim towards Minsky, I do find reasonable to talk about how these terms are used. I even understand his argument that these terms best not be used in accusations because there are better ones. I find your inte…

Stallman's position is pretty clearly that we should use precise language always. It seems a pretty impeccable position to me. The only people I can think of who benefit from conflating coercive and non-coercive crimes under the same term are the ones who profit from the confusion.

The language used was the correct technical term. There's no imprecision in using it.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#502

Post by meruru »

mjg59 wrote: post #500
lolc wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be taken that way. But if "sexually" is omitted from "sexually assaulted" a statement can easily be misunderstood. If you add in the context that there was no direct accusation of sexual assault by the victim towards Minsky, I do find reasonable to talk about how these terms are used. I even understand his argument that these terms best not be used in accusations because there are better ones. I find your inte…

The definition of "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place. Yes, if you change the words used, you end up with an inaccurate statement. Why is that something that needs to be pointed out? Stallman's entire point is that he feels the use of the word "assault" causes people to believe the crime is more serious than he believes it is. Pointing that out isn't uncharitable.

Using the word assault causes people to believe a different thing happened. It says nothing about the gravity of each kind of crime except that they shouldn't be the same.

The only reason "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place is because the expression was redefined in the first place to cover two separate things, which is exactly the problem. Stallman called not for redefining "sexual assault" as you put it, but for undoing a redefinition that puts it at odds with how those terms are conventionally used and causes unnecessary confusion.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#503

Post by mjg59 »

meruru wrote: post #502
mjg59 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place. Yes, if you change the words used, you end up with an inaccurate statement. Why is that something that needs to be pointed out? Stallman's entire point is that he feels the use of the word "assault" causes people to believe the crime is more serious than he believes it is. Pointing that out isn't uncharitable.

Using the word assault causes people to believe a different thing happened. It says nothing about the gravity of each kind of crime except that they shouldn't be the same. The only reason "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place is because the expression was redefined in the first place to cover two separate things, which is exactly the problem. Stallman called not for redefining "sexual assault" as you put…

And "free software" makes people believe that the software costs nothing, but Stallman's position there isn't to suggest that we should always use a different term. Why not?

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#504

Post by prepend »

eej2ya1K wrote: post #444
prepend wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don’t understand what you mean by “fouled up his room?” Do you mean he messed up the furniture? Spilled tomato sauce on everything? Overflowed the toilet?

There's a reason all these stories stay so vague - as soon as the details come out, it turns out to be lies, exaggerations or really really minor stuff. By keeping the narrative at the level of "fouled up his room", "made women feel uncomfortable", "drove people out of open source" the people who attack him can make sure that no one can prove them "wrong". Of course, they also ensure that they can't prove anything th…

I guess a good criteria for criticism should at least be something that passes AirBnB editorial review.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#505

Post by ehvatum »

aonsager wrote: post #101
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #72

We are, sadly, entering a new age of conformity. Aligning yourself with what main stream society thinks is correct is now more important than anything else. The response of course is that "bad behavior should never be excused, regardless of ability!" which leads to a losing argument in which we try to say what kind of good excuses what kind of bad. But this presupposes the conformist stance: that fitting in with the…

Yes there is a benefit to radical thinking and nonconformity, but "do it without hurting others" is a reasonable line to draw. Stallman was viewed as a toxic individual who caused harm, and this is what our society is trying to weed out. I still believe, perhaps naively, that it's possible to maintain not-normal opinions without causing pain to the people around you. And this is something that everyone needs to do, w…

>I still believe, perhaps naively, that it's possible to maintain not-normal opinions without causing pain to the people around you. And this is something that everyone needs to do, whether you're in the majority or the minority.

At issue, negative beliefs are postulated to be the cause of social ills such as racism and sexism. Therefore, what Richard Stallman believes is the core objection, because simply holding a belief is now viewed as the root of injustice. To wit, you see, again and again, attempts to claim moral credit from the leveling the assertion that Richard Stallman is a toxic asshole guilty of no particular crime, but instead an accrued debt of micro-aggressions that together represent a pattern of behavior unambiguously identifying his as a thought criminal.

Seriously. He once messed up a hotel room, and had a sign on his office door, and clumsily asked someone on a date. From this we know that he has harmful opinions.

If it were just any one of these things, perhaps there'd be some room left to think it's all a misunderstanding, to wonder if he doesn't actually believe this or that... which we must indecently rush to exclaim that we certainly do not also believe! oh no! I, for one, think stigmatizing people for their beliefs is wrong, which is why I have never messed up a hotel room or caused anybody pain! Cancel RMS!

It is extremely painful dealing with this level of dishonesty. Perhaps RMS's thoughts on free software are more relevant than his opinions on other things, and we should ignore his thoughts on the age of consent, because, if we don't, we're going to find that there has never once been a good idea from a mind that did not also harbor bad ideas.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#506

Post by meruru »

mjg59 wrote: post #503
meruru wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the word assault causes people to believe a different thing happened. It says nothing about the gravity of each kind of crime except that they shouldn't be the same. The only reason "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place is because the expression was redefined in the first place to cover two separate things, which is exactly the problem. Stallman called not for redefining "sexual assault" as you put…

And "free software" makes people believe that the software costs nothing, but Stallman's position there isn't to suggest that we should always use a different term. Why not?

I agree the expression "Free Software" has the same problem. However the alternatives also have some problems. He discusses that here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... (I'm sure you've already read it, but it's always worth a re-read)

I'm partial to the term "Libre" myself, though in this case it doesn't matter much, since it's a concept that people aren't familiar with anyway and you have to explain it no matter what word you use.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#507

Post by meruru »

mjg59 wrote: post #501
meruru wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman's position is pretty clearly that we should use precise language always. It seems a pretty impeccable position to me. The only people I can think of who benefit from conflating coercive and non-coercive crimes under the same term are the ones who profit from the confusion.

The language used was the correct technical term. There's no imprecision in using it.

It's unfortunate that the legal definition became broader for the same reason I think the common definition shouldn't.

I imagine however that most legislatures get around the issue by having explicit paragraphs establishing harsher punishments for violent rape vs mutually-accepted statutory rape.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#508

Post by widowlark »

salawat wrote: post #467
mirimir wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there was that recent case about the tween girl who got convicted of distributing child pornography for sexting another tween. So it's obvious to me that underage sexting itself shouldn't be prosecuted as child porn. Because if they're old enough to prosecute as adults, they're also old enough to legally share naked pictures of themselves. But of course, it's arguable that third parties -- especially adult thir…

Look, this conversation right here that you're making is exactly why people beiing willing to take a stance against these sorts of "thou shalt be dumped upon for even mentioning" things is necessary. He's not a fool in that regard. He understands that as long as you can attach paedophilia to something, this type of outrage phenomena can completely sink any attempt at civil discourse, and can be weaponized in order to…

This is incredibly dramatic. Orwell warned us of governmental censorship. Huxley warned us of government and citizen complacency. What we are experiencing here is something else, and it's NOT in the form of a law, or a punishment, or anything else. The government is not enforcing these actions on anyone. People are free to mob around an idea and attempt to actuate results. You can still speak your mind. It has nothing to do with 'Our Country'. Your equating of the two is worrisome

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#509

Post by widowlark »

noobermin wrote: post #362
comex wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What official channels? Nobody has accused RMS of anything that constitutes a crime. (But it's not surprising that the necessary qualifications for leading the FSF are stricter than the qualifications for not being in jail.)

The board could have met, deliberated, have an honest discussion, reviewed evidence. Not simply oust him a week later.

It's not their job nor their responsibility to handle issues this way

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#510

Post by widowlark »

jamesrcole wrote: post #197
aonsager wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is a benefit to radical thinking and nonconformity, but "do it without hurting others" is a reasonable line to draw. Stallman was viewed as a toxic individual who caused harm, and this is what our society is trying to weed out. I still believe, perhaps naively, that it's possible to maintain not-normal opinions without causing pain to the people around you. And this is something that everyone needs to do, w…

Social progress involves making-acceptable things that were previously offensive and outrageous to the majority. Things that were considered harmful to society. Things like equal rights for women, minorities, different sexualities. For progress to be possible, people must be able to say offensive things that others find unpleasant. You might say, but it’s not those kinds of “harmful” views we want to stop, only the g…

If it was the government censoring you from saying those "harmful" things I would agree with you. Who gets to decide is society, and it's responding loud and clear to this issue.
Post reply on HN