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

651–660 of 681 posts

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#651

Post by CathedralBorrow »

flukus wrote: post #640
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, took him until a few days after the whole storm had started. Good timing to have such a profound reversal in your view on pedophilia.

Because he probably forgot about it until then. He comments on half a dozen things a day, out of tens of thousands of comments over 2 decades only 2 were about this issue so it's not as if it was a firmly held personal conviction.

I don't know about you, but I don't think forgetting that you believe sex with children can be fine is any better really.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#652

Post by CathedralBorrow »

johnsea wrote: post #641
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair, and thanks for the explanation. I couldn't disagree more but that's normal. In this extreme example of mine, would you be happy as a parent to have your children in this teacher's classroom? Would you be taking part in a free speech suppressing pitchfork mob if you were to call the school and express your opinion that you don't want your child to be taught by a pedophile?

It's completely inappropriate that you use such extreme examples in a thread about RMS. Implicitly you link him to this. I would fire you...

The link is entirely of your making, I even explicitly stated that I'm using an extreme example.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#653

Post by CathedralBorrow »

eyko wrote: post #643
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman wasn't convicted of any crime, so please drop the "illegal" thing. He can have whatever controversial opinions he wants.

One could argue that in the "court of public opinion" he very much was.

Yes, his actions and words had consequences. Is this a new idea to you?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#654

Post by Chris2048 »

GarrickDrgn wrote: post #147
lagadu wrote: 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.

for some value of "rape" and "children"; Are Europeans child rape apologists for having lower ages of consent?

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#656

Post by mirimir »

coldtea wrote: post #491
FactolSarin wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that based on this single email alone, it would be shocking for someone to be forced out. On the other hand, apparently RMS has had a long history of making women feel uncomfortable around him, and not taking "no" for an answer. I feel like this is probably something that's been building for a time, and this letter might have just been the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't that bad in and of itself…

> On the other hand, apparently RMS has had a long history of making women feel uncomfortable around him, and not taking "no" for an answer. I had friends meet Stallman in some conference, and they told me he could make everybody (not just women) "feel uncomfortable around him" in some ways (but nothing an adult shouldn't be able to handle). Now, if this is about attacking women (physically, or sexually, etc) that wo…

There is that quote in the hit piece , part 2:[0]

> “When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him.

> I felt bad for him and also uncomfortable and manipulated. I did not like being put in that position — suddenly responsible for an “important” man. What had I done to get into this situation? I decided I could not be responsible for his living or dying, and would have to accept him killing himself. I declined further contact.

> He was not a man of his word or he’d be long dead.”

> —Betsy S., Bachelor’s in Management Science, ’85

I suspect that he was kidding, but who knows?

0) https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#657

Post by mirimir »

Kbelicius wrote: post #405
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all.

I believe that he said that children having sex together is OK. Not adults having sex with children. That's not OK.

I mean, when I was 10-12, I engaged in private circle jerks with other boys. And we "played Doctor" with girls. No sex, but feeling and "examinations". And spin the bottle games, for taking off clothes and kissing. And holding our brearh, and squeezing each others chests to pass out.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#658

Post by CogitoCogito »

pron wrote: post #605
CogitoCogito wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. None of the things you mention is actually the issue. > Diversity: It's not about opinion, but about an authority figure doing things that harm his colleagues. I could have the opinion that you're an idiot and a liar, but if we were working together and I would constantly say that in the workplace where everyone hears, I would probably get fired. > Inclusiveness: It's not about ostracising, either, certainly no…

https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

Thank you that was a very good and informative read.

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#659

Post by CathedralBorrow »

mirimir wrote: post #657
Kbelicius wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all.

I believe that he said that children having sex together is OK. Not adults having sex with children. That's not OK. I mean, when I was 10-12, I engaged in private circle jerks with other boys. And we "played Doctor" with girls. No sex, but feeling and "examinations". And spin the bottle games, for taking off clothes and kissing. And holding our brearh, and squeezing each others chests to pass out.

"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it."

Re: In Defense of Richard Stallman

#660

Post by pron »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #658
pron wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

Thank you that was a very good and informative read.

I will also tell you that research shows that the vast majority of sexual harassment and bullying complaints against powerful men go ignored for years. Then something happens that attracts wide public attention and some action is taken. At which point there's the usual choir chants of "witch hunt", "PC mob", and "this could happen to literally anyone" (the fact is that it rarely "happens" even to very real harassers), but invariably you find that the trigger, which may not be disastrous on its own, usually follows years of not decades of issues.
Post reply on HN