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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#801

Post by ZeroGravitas »

amyjess wrote: post #749
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…

What he said, for posterity: > "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing," Stallman wrote in his post last Wednesday. "Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term 'sexual assault' in a…

His use of "plausible" is interesting here. It is plausible that she wouldn't announce that she was a blackmail-trap/underaged sex worker/trafficked slave or whatever.

It's not plausible that an 17 year old would be propositioning old men without any external influence in this situation. I think he's strongly implying this and that's part of what got the strong reaction.

I'd suggest due to that, the statement is dodgy even before you get to the bit you highlight.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#802

Post by cameldrv »

widowlark wrote: post #764
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…

Stallman hasn't been silenced in any way. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you like without consequence from private institutions and citizens, only that you may say whatever you like without consequences from the government et al. Your conflation that free speech is under attack is disappointing - That's not what is happening here.

The concept of “free speech” does not begin and end with the 1st amendment. There is also free speech as an instrumental value.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#803

Post by speeder »

colechristensen wrote: post #652
marble-drink wrote: post #505

I'm so relieved to find that at least on hacker news people can still evaluate this situation with reason. Out there it's a witch hunt and Stallman is now a witch. RMS is a great man but sadly has difficulties communicating with the wider world. This has been true of many great minds throughout history. It's sad to see it happen to one of my own heroes but I believe history will do him justice if we continue to fight…

There are a chain of media reports which inaccurately portray what Stallman was saying. But look past that into what was happening. Stallman was trying to defend Minsky who had sex with someone, a teenager, nearly 60 years younger than him on a billionaire's private island. There isn't an imaginable circumstance where what happened there was not, even in the best possible light, incredibly creepy. His intellectual ar…

Saw your post is recent and noone is debunking this so I should...

Minksy DIDN'T had the sex.

What the court documents said is:

A woman, that at the time was 17, said Epstein told her to OFFER sex to Minsky.

And another person that was present, Greg Benford, said that Minsky refused the offer.

Nowhere was stated that sex happened.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#804

Post by anonuser123456 »

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…

>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired

In my opinion, you are conflating inappropriate statements with statements to which you disagree.

The university campus is where minds should go to get challenged by different and somewhat uncomfortable opinions. RMS presents different and uncomfortable opinions in spades. But he does not present them in an inappropriate way. The thread RMS was responding to was explicitly political and opinion based. It was absolutely fair game for his response.

As an example, when I attended university, I took a class (Anthro 2A) where the material presented pedophilia as normal behavior in the context of certain cultural customs. I personally disagree with that research, but I didn't call for the instructor to be fired. Cultural relativism is an important concept that should be thought about even if one disagrees.

But the actual Stallman/MIT kerfluffle is actually not that big a deal IMO.

The bigger deal is the mob acting on deceptive reporting by Vice & DailyBeast. It's one thing to say that Stallman's factual statements on Minsky were inappropriate. It's another to conflate them with statements on Epstein. The vast majority of the outrage is based on the reporting that makes Stallman appear sympathetic to Epstein which is a complete fabrication. It is literally 'fake news'.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#805

Post by speeder »

I would like to point out that the court documents have written on them:

A woman, testified that Epstein told her to offer sex to Minsky.

What it DIDN'T said:

That Minsky accepted the offer.

Also there are a witness (someone that was present, Greg Benford) that claims that Minsky didn't accepted the offer.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#806

Post by schwurb »

marble-drink wrote: post #505

I'm so relieved to find that at least on hacker news people can still evaluate this situation with reason. Out there it's a witch hunt and Stallman is now a witch. RMS is a great man but sadly has difficulties communicating with the wider world. This has been true of many great minds throughout history. It's sad to see it happen to one of my own heroes but I believe history will do him justice if we continue to fight…

> That sounds awful, but apparently this is what the world wants: carefully filtered speech that doesn't stray far from what people already agree with.

No, it is sufficient already to not blurt out controversial things at bat-shit-insanely-bad timings. Similar to how people would be mad at Einstein if he pulled a non-ironic "Yeah, but to be honest he wasn't THAT great" a friends funeral.

I don't like mobs and I lament the fact that one such important figure in computing has such difficulties making himself understood. But that does not mean that the world has a problem somehow. It just happens to be a world that is not fine-tuned to Stallman-communication and that values reducing sexism higher than technical accuracy. Some people don't work that way, some people get therapy to allign themselves, some withdraw from society, some manage to get by. Stallman happened to fall on the friction side of things this time.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#807

Post by cf141q5325 »

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…

I dont necessarily disagree with your assessment, however i am sure someone could also tell you how sex before marriage has an absolutely horrible impact on the people involved or how your assessment would also be true for prostitution in general. You likely heard "the speech" before when it comes to abortions.

In the end its weighing off protecting people from a presumed risk against infringing on their self determination. The question is clear cut when it comes to kids as we as a society accepted that their self determination isnt that great and infringing on it is fine most of the time. They have to brush their teeth, they dont get to drink alcohol and they cant work in a brothel.

The question here is does the same rule for a 8 year old apply for a 17 year old. Most European societies see a huge difference when it comes to age and that the ways in which the self determination of a 17 year old can be restricted are a lot more limited. In the end infringing on someones self determination is just too grave of a violation to do it unless its absolutely necessary.

What is instead illegal is not the action of the person presumed to be needing protection but make sure that exploiting that person is illegal. The Switzerland example still had it illegal to encourage or coerce girls to work in a brothel, which in practice means there was no one willing to risk running such a brothel.

And again, this discussion misses the point. Its not why did Eppstein run a brothel on an island but how come he was able to engage in sex trafficking, coercing of minors and all of that under the nose of quite a lot of politicians.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#808

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#809

Post by noobermin »

widowlark wrote: post #764
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…

Stallman hasn't been silenced in any way. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you like without consequence from private institutions and citizens, only that you may say whatever you like without consequences from the government et al. Your conflation that free speech is under attack is disappointing - That's not what is happening here.

This has been said before, but free speech is beyond just government censorship and has a wider definition. Regardless of that, the idea that someone's livelihood is under threat due to their speech can be just as coercive as threatening a fine or jail for their speech. The idea that government chilling is someone kinder than private chilling is wrong.

Re: Richard M. Stallman resigns

#810

Post by mindslight »

widowlark wrote: post #764
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…

Stallman hasn't been silenced in any way. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you like without consequence from private institutions and citizens, only that you may say whatever you like without consequences from the government et al. Your conflation that free speech is under attack is disappointing - That's not what is happening here.

This is horribly incorrect. Freedom of Speech is a larger concept outside of how it is (and can even possibly be) codified in law. The US Bill of Rights is phrased in terms of a restriction on the government, because that's the only line that can be straightforwardly drawn within the framework of the Constitution.

An example of the concept being applied to quasi-public entities, with enough generality for the legal realm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

Post reply on HN