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

Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 357 posts

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#81

Post by thenewnewguy »

75dvtwin wrote: post #43

> Amongst my real-life friendship groups this sort of "hate mob" type stuff just doesn't exist You have great friendship groups. Do you remember, by any chance how this topic was handled in your discussions (I am genuinely curios) "... Brendan Eich is gone. The creator of JavaScript and co-founder of mozilla.org has quit as Mozilla’s CEO, forced out by the uproar over a donation he made six years ago to a ballot meas…

> There’s no record of Eich discriminating against gay employees—“I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness,” says the company’s chairwoman.

Somewhat off-topic, but is donating to groups opposing the human rights of minority groups seriously considered "in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness"?

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#83

Post by acjohnson55 »

Causality1 wrote: post #49

I'm certain there's going to be an immensely interesting biopic about Stallman's life one day. I can think of few people whose bad qualities are contrasted so strongly with their good.

I can think of many such people. They're well represented at the top tiers of fields. Steve Jobs, for example.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#84

Post by a3n »

akuchling wrote: post #11

Yes, but will he step down from his role with the Free Software Foundation? I'm more concerned about that, since that's a more public-facing role.

Unless Epstein gave money to FSF, there will be no public outcry. Most people had never heard of Stallman until Epstein and MIT.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#85

Post by RickSanchez2600 »

claudeganon wrote: post #59
75dvtwin wrote: post #43

> Amongst my real-life friendship groups this sort of "hate mob" type stuff just doesn't exist You have great friendship groups. Do you remember, by any chance how this topic was handled in your discussions (I am genuinely curios) "... Brendan Eich is gone. The creator of JavaScript and co-founder of mozilla.org has quit as Mozilla’s CEO, forced out by the uproar over a donation he made six years ago to a ballot meas…

Honestly, I’m happy to live in a future where bankrolling the denial of other’s human rights is something that can cost you your job, even if you’re wealthy and powerful. No one would have questioned him being forced to resign if he had financed an anti-miscegenation initiative. It’s just that hatred of LGBTQ people is still normalized to the extent that people think you should be “given a pass.”

Eich is Catholic, his faith does not believe in gay marriage. He donated to a charity that was against gay marriage on the ballots. Because of that he was forced to resign.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#86

Post by tw20190916jobdg »

ceejayoz wrote: post #30
partialrecall wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say recent statements more accurately reflect somebody's current beliefs than old statements. Considering how badly he's been recently slandered by media outlets leaving out context and mischaracterizing his remarks, I am disturbed by your willingness to exclude that context from your previous comment.

As a general rule, I tend to give more credit to consistent and freely offered opinions espoused over years than a sudden conversion immediately after a PR crisis. There's a famous saying: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

How do you reconcile

(a) your implication that Stallman is flip-flopping due to public pressure

with

(b) Stallman's lifetime as a Diogenean polemic who has been shown to stand by his beliefs, no matter how unpopular?

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#87

Post by marcinzm »

_v7gu wrote: post #79
marcinzm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people down voting this? ceejayoz cited specific quotes with references. Seems sort of hypocritical to me that people who seem to be arguing for the freedom of intellectual debate do the exact opposite if facts don't line up in their favor.

He changed his opinions regarding this, just because he keeps all of his posts online forever shouldn't mean he should be represented by those when people need to write a hit piece for clicks.

That is a valid counter-argument, intellectual debate would be posting it rather than silently down voting.

As of my post no one has responded anywhere with it. They have however downvoted ceejayoz although the votes now seem to have become net positive again.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#88

Post by gruez »

claudeganon wrote: post #59
75dvtwin wrote: post #43

> Amongst my real-life friendship groups this sort of "hate mob" type stuff just doesn't exist You have great friendship groups. Do you remember, by any chance how this topic was handled in your discussions (I am genuinely curios) "... Brendan Eich is gone. The creator of JavaScript and co-founder of mozilla.org has quit as Mozilla’s CEO, forced out by the uproar over a donation he made six years ago to a ballot meas…

Honestly, I’m happy to live in a future where bankrolling the denial of other’s human rights is something that can cost you your job, even if you’re wealthy and powerful. No one would have questioned him being forced to resign if he had financed an anti-miscegenation initiative. It’s just that hatred of LGBTQ people is still normalized to the extent that people think you should be “given a pass.”

>Honestly, I’m happy to live in a future where bankrolling the denial of other’s human rights is something that can cost you your job, even if you’re wealthy and powerful.

Sounds great when it's working for you. How about in reverse? Are you fine with CEOs firing employees that don't follow their preferred political affiliation/positions? Just to make it interesting let's say it's pro-deregulation, anti-union, anti-welfare, anti-minority rights, and pro guns.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#89

Post by mikekchar »

teh_klev wrote: post #24
esotericn wrote: post #16

Is anyone else baffled by the idea that discussing something on an intellectual level, even related to a person, has to somehow be a 'defense' or an 'offense'? I've spent basically my entire life discussing things in the abstract. I'm not a politician, I don't make laws, and frankly I wouldn't want that power. To me it makes absolute sense that someone would attempt to "defend" even the most heinous person. It's weir…

I have, with the best most charitable reading of your post, no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps some context would be useful with regards to Stallman. Edit: in my defence, is op defending Stallman, or Epstein? Honestly, I don't know how Epstein and Stallman are related. I don't follow Stallman's every statement he makes. I simply asked for some context and enlightenment in this headline and esotericn's comment…

Stallman participated in an online discussion of the situation in which he condemned Epstein, but questioned whether or not Minsky had done wrong. It was not clear whether Minsky was aware that the woman had been coerced into having sex with him. There was a reply on the thread which said that the woman was under the age of consent in the country where the act was said to have taken place (but not in the US, I guess). Stallman further replied that in general (but not not necessarily specifically about this case) he felt it wasn't reasonable to quibble about that kind of technicality when discussing the morality of the situation (i.e. it would have been legal in one place, but not another). After that, there were pieces written by various web media outlets where they mis-quoted Stallman, alleging that he said things which he does not seem to have said.

So I think the OP is wondering out loud why it's not OK for Stallman to have a public opinion about the morality of the situation where it is apparently OK in one country, but if you go on holiday to another country it is rape.

The OP did not mention Epstein at all and it's not related to the discussion in any way. The problem is that the media has been waging a kind of character assassination of Stallman and quite frankly appears to have slandered him rather badly.

However, to answer the OP's musings: Stallman should know better than to get pulled into this kind of conversation because he has many political opponents who will stop at nothing to drag his name in the mud. He was completely stupid to respond at all. Maybe it's not fair, but it's reality.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#90

Post by primroot »

esotericn wrote: post #16

Is anyone else baffled by the idea that discussing something on an intellectual level, even related to a person, has to somehow be a 'defense' or an 'offense'? I've spent basically my entire life discussing things in the abstract. I'm not a politician, I don't make laws, and frankly I wouldn't want that power. To me it makes absolute sense that someone would attempt to "defend" even the most heinous person. It's weir…

This is a quote from an interview, where Norman Finkelstein discusses the subject of thought policing.

"What he should have done was in my opinion deliver one policy speech. 'This is where we stand on antisemitism. This is where we stand on the mechanisms for dealing with antisemitism in our party. Case closed.' The other major mistake he made was .. a complete abandonment of the principle of free speech. People have a right to say and think whatever they want. 'I'm a member of the Labour Party. OK. I subscribe to Labour Party's political platform. That's what makes me a member.' But that doesn't mean you have the right to troll my Facebook postings, you have the right to vet everything I say or post on Instagram. I mean that's Romania under Ceausescu, that's North Korea under Kim Il Sung. That's now going to be the mandate of the Labour Party? To be trolling in your thoughts and ideas? To see whether you are an antisemite? Everybody, including you, including your camera people harbors some antisemitic stereotypes... OK. Who cares? I mean It's very hard to extirpate, ... because it's rooted in thousands of years. I mean it's everywhere. It's part of the atmosphere, it's part of the environment, it's part of the history. Do I not harbor any anti-black stereotypes any racist stereotypes? Do I harbor no sexist stereotypes? No! And now we are going to have a Labour Party, which is going to [?] the depths of your conscience, ... looking for some evidence of antisemitism, ...? It's complete lunacy and it's a complete repudiation, abandonment of the most fundamental principles of what's called the Enlightenment beginning with as the Germans put it in that nice German folk song Die Gedanken sind Frei (Thoughts are free). People have the right to think what they believe, and since thought is inseparable from speech, you have the right to think and speak as you please. And if you don't like what a person is saying then you have the right either not to listen or try to persuade the person ... but what you don't have the right to do is penalize people, punish people, expel people for their thoughts... It's a complete political disaster because all it does is it forces people to repress what they're thinking until a demagogue comes along and starts saying what you're thinking, what you were forced to repress. And instead of your erroneous thoughts having been answered, the fact that you were forced to repress them, it validates it for you. ... And then the demagogue comes along and starts to exploit all of those repressed thoughts. So morally it's unacceptable to try to police people's thoughts and politically it's a complete disaster." https://youtu.be/OPYfLY2cAi4?t=616

Post reply on HN