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

Richard M. Stallman resigns

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#791

Post by prolepunk »

ubermonkey wrote: post #727
reuven wrote: post #665

People seem to be saying a variety of things about RMS: He's a genius, so let him be. He doesn't understand interpersonal communication. He didn't say the things people thought he said. People are too quick to judge. And so forth. I was there, about 20 years ago, when he sent e-mail urging all free-software advocates to protest a bill under consideration in the US Congress. I asked him if he had read the bill. "No,"…

I'm very glad to read this here. I'm sorry it's so far down the page. RMS achieved a sort of secular saintly status early on, and as a result has been excused from developing any sort of interpersonal skills or, apparently, human decency for most of his adult life. Now we say he identifies as autistic, like this excuses it, but in the absence of an actual diagnosis (and maybe even WITH one), it feels like a cop out.…

Even with diagnosis this is a cop out.

Being autistic does not automatically make a person act shitty towards others and statements like that do a great disservice to autistic community.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#792

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

yibg wrote: post #770
eloff wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it we value free speech, but there are certain discussions you just cannot have, even in a rational and measured way, without risking making yourself completely unemployable. You should be able to have a questionable viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your career. The consequences here are out of line. You can be reprimanded to take your discussions to a non company venue, i…

Free speech while extremely important cannot be used as a blanket cover to say whatever you want and expect not to suffer consequences. I’m free to call my girlfriend stupid every day, but I should expect the consequence of soon being single. There are clearly mob reactions to things, but there are also clearly inappropriate speech that should have consequences. What he said here wasn’t in isolation as some idle musi…

> Free speech while extremely important cannot be used as a blanket cover to say whatever you want and expect not to suffer consequences.

That's what Joe McCarthy and the House Committee for Un-American Activities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) said to leftists, union organizers, communists, and others in the 1950s. Is that the kind of company progressives prefer to keep, intellectually speaking?

Apparently the only difference between progressives and conservatives is which sacred cows that they're willing to mob you for for insulting. Fellow liberals, I beg of you, take heed; progressives are not our friends.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#793

Post by cf141q5325 »

yibg wrote: post #779
cf141q5325 wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island. Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything. Playing the Advocatus Diaboli, why should i view this outcry as anything different then the Saudis stance on sex before marriage? Fundamentalist puritan…

So laws don’t matter as long as in some other jurisdictions or time it’s not illegal? You are free to disagree with the law as it’s written. You are even free to break the laws if you disagree strongly enough. But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.

>But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.

No one does. its not about not prosecuting anyone for what happened on that Island. Its about Stallmans response to the allegations against someone else. Did you respond to the wrong comment by any chance?

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#794

Post by astine »

eloff wrote: post #736
colechristensen wrote: post #679

RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island. There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky. The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other" they can because they're a fan of RMS is disturbing. This isn't us vs. them. This is a man who said something wildl…

How is it we value free speech, but there are certain discussions you just cannot have, even in a rational and measured way, without risking making yourself completely unemployable. You should be able to have a questionable viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your career. The consequences here are out of line. You can be reprimanded to take your discussions to a non company venue, i…

"How is it we value free speech, but there are certain discussions you just cannot have, even in a rational and measured way, without risking making yourself completely unemployable. You should be able to have a questionable viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your career."

I agree with this statement.

Stallman has been a problematic person for a long time. I'm no fan of his. If after a while the university had said, "Enough is enough, Richard, you need to shape up or get out." I would have understood that.

However, that's not what I think happened. What happened was he shared an opinion on a hot-button issue, pedantic and maybe gross, and unfortunately had that go viral and was so hounded out of his position.

If Stallman's position is wrong, we should be able to rationally come to that conclusion as a society. He should be allowed to be wrong. If his opinion is so problematic that it makes him a real liability for the university, his removal should come after a period of deliberation, not after a flash of public outrage.

I can understand arguments that Stallman's position is a questionable hill to die on regarding the Epstein revelations, that even choosing to weigh in on this makes it seem like his priorities are out of order. I can also understand the argument that the email list he was arguing on was the wrong location to voice his opinions and he was making students uncomfortable. I also understand the idea that he should have been corrected by the university, either for this event or for his past behavior.

But what I don't understand, is this idea that firing people in response to media shit-storms is somehow something to be applauded.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#795

Post by roenxi »

yibg wrote: post #779
cf141q5325 wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island. Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything. Playing the Advocatus Diaboli, why should i view this outcry as anything different then the Saudis stance on sex before marriage? Fundamentalist puritan…

So laws don’t matter as long as in some other jurisdictions or time it’s not illegal? You are free to disagree with the law as it’s written. You are even free to break the laws if you disagree strongly enough. But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.

Stallman is facing consequences that are not part of the law. This citation of different legal standards provides evidence that extra-legal action was inappropriate.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#796

Post by will4274 »

lame88 wrote: post #596
dexen wrote: post #447

Just as much as RMS was right[1], ESR was right[2]. The "cancel culture" is harming the free software movement by practicing human version of Microsoft's EEE[3]. The cancel culture enters the community, establishes interests groups, and starts knocking down prominent contributors. The demands are backed by angry crowds on social media rather than by contributions. It's time for us to defend each other, and to hold co…

Using the term SJW alone destroys the credibility of any substantial claim using it. If you really want to persuade people, find a term that isn’t mainly employed as incendiary jargon of far-right ideology to categorically dismiss anyone left of their viewpoint.

You might want to check where you're standing. SJW is common slang, used by the right, the center, independents, and the moderate left to describe a particular subset of the far left. As an anecdote, a girl I recently met told me (unsolicited, I hadn't use the word yet, but we were talking around politics) "I'm fairly liberal but I can't stand SJWs." Ironically, you did in your comment exactly what you said the parent was doing - inadvertently demonstrated that your views are very far from the mainstream in a way that harms your own credibility.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#797

Post by nikanj »

colechristensen wrote: post #679

RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island. There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky. The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other" they can because they're a fan of RMS is disturbing. This isn't us vs. them. This is a man who said something wildl…

The last person who tried providing counter-arguments just got fired from MIT.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#798

Post by dangerface »

nabla9 wrote: post #343

RMS has called himself "borderline autistic". His socially clueless black and white thinking makes it look like he is far in the spectrum. RMS is anal about meanings of terms and their use. That's not working well in the current climate where words carry perceived intent. I find myself agreeing with RMS with most of the terminology and its use in this case. Women who tell stories about him paint a picture of lonely s…

> He does not deserve the same level of consideration as normal HR headache would. Even if everything against him would be completely unjust, there is no requirement for just treatment for top leaders. They can be sacked for any reason whatsoever.

The only people who deserve less consideration are those that pick and choose who to treat justly.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#799

Post by Digory »

colechristensen wrote: post #773
cf141q5325 wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island. Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything. Playing the Advocatus Diaboli, why should i view this outcry as anything different then the Saudis stance on sex before marriage? Fundamentalist puritan…

There isn't a situation where a 74 year old has sexual contact with a 17 year old on a billionaire's private island in which everyone is willing and happy with what is happening. It is extremely doubtful that a young woman would find herself in that situation in any other way than a long path of abuse and desperation. Taking advantage of that young woman is immoral. That isn't some puritanical, anti-sex philosophy th…

It is striking to see you say it, given the decades of immense cultural pressure to convince young Americans that of course you should be willing and happy to seek out sex with old billionaires -- it's fulfilling!

It's so hard to imagine the origins of the Playboy-era now. But it was dominant among the educated classes through the 80s or 90s. The change is mostly for the better. I suppose the pendulum will swing again some day, but likely not in my lifetime.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#800

Post by solidsnack9000 »

colechristensen wrote: post #762
eloff wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it we value free speech, but there are certain discussions you just cannot have, even in a rational and measured way, without risking making yourself completely unemployable. You should be able to have a questionable viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your career. The consequences here are out of line. You can be reprimanded to take your discussions to a non company venue, i…

I value free speech in that I value the government's inability to limit anyone's expression with only a few reasonable exceptions. I don't take "free speech" to mean anyone can say anything without consequence. The government has a whole lot of power and it comes with limits like free speech. That doesn't mean that people in my employ can say awful things and I should just ignore it. Free speech doesn't extend to bei…

Free speech is generally accepted to be in the service of “political dialogue”.

In so far as Stallman was discussing the law, he was genuinely engaging in political dialogue; in so far as he was speculating about Minsky or the situation in question he was not.

To say that we can exercise speech but must face the “consequences” is just begging the question — what “consequences” are compatible with a free society? If my boss says it would be a great thing if California secedes from the Union, and I say I doubt that would go well, we rely so much on other states for water, &c, &c ... I may definitely offend him. How acceptable is it that a person be fired in that situation?

Post reply on HN