871–880 of 1001 posts
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…
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…
You're justifying the actions a lynch mob. Why does anyone need to provide a counter point? The onus is on you to explain why you think a mob taking justice into their own hands is okay. The only justification I can find is that he said something inappropriate. Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
Completely missing the point of the outrage.
It's the chilling effect of people silencing views they don't like that really freaks people out, pisses them off and makes them mad. The actual views in play are irrelevant - the issue is that some person was uncomfortable at something some other person said, so they silenced the man's ability to say it. Not just that, they took away his vitality and ability to support himself. Anyone with any kind of functional critical reasoning facilities can instantly understand why this is scary.
It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions. If you think the wrong way, the progressive mob will make you seem unemployable. Because you had the audacity to say something "inappropriate," (oh also the mob determines what's appropriate and inappropriate on the fly).
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…
He took a position in a discussion you disagree with, so you're OK with him being removed from his organizations and his name dragged through the mud. Your argument stands for a world where people deserve to be stripped of their position because they expressed an opinion you disagree with.
Even if you're completely 100% right, how do 'indefensible opinions' get challenged if they cannot be expressed? How do any of us learn or improve?
Has anyone taken a moment to think, what comes next now that he's gone? I hope for your sake and mine that the accomplishments of the GNU and FSF will be enough to keep us free.
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.
The only alternative names that come to my mind are the "inductive inconsequential postmodernists" and the "emotional radical progressives"
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…
I don’t think what he said was wildly inappropriate for the forum. It’s an open discussion forum. People not understanding and being offended is not something that RMS or a reasonable poster could predict or prevent.
I read through the entire thread and it’s not as bad as people are interpreting. I think people are inferring intent and meaning that just isn’t there.
I’m pretty disappointed in FSF.
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…
Yes, this bashing is totally unreasonable, he expressed an opinion that the charge against Minsky is not valid. One party makes an accusation, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do for the other party to counter it. Accusation is not the same thing as proof. There is a category of accusations these days that are just the same as a jury sentence, if you're labeled, then you're done. No evidence, witness saying this didn't happen ? Still guilty.
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…
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…
Anyone who has actually read the email thread and considers it a defence of sexual assault, the topic of the thread, is as intellectually bankrupt as the media witch hunts rms was warning about and fell victim to. We should be all concerned that media witch hunts like this can in act such results. It is abhorrent that any discussion that triggers a progressive dominated media can destroy people's lives.
I read it. There was some irrelevant quibbling about how accusations are worded. Then there was the speculation that the seventeen year old girl who is accusing his 73 year old friend of a sex crime would have appeared willing in the exchange with the implication that this apparent willingness made the situation not Minsky's fault. Doesn't matter if it didn't happen, defending statutory rape like that is really inapp…
See, the thing about statutory rape is that it is illegal, and sexual assault is also illegal, but (surprisingly!) that does not mean that they are the same thing. (It is left as an exercise for the reader to see if this applies to other pairings like, say, "public drunkenness" and "murder in the first degree.")
Stallman was not "defending statutory rape": he was saying, "Words mean things, and the words "sexual assault" suggest an image of 75-yr-old Marvin holding girls down and raping them, and that it is unlikely that that, you know, actually happened."
>It was a very creepy situation and indefensible.
Oooh, so creepy! Too creepy to think about, even! Nazis were pretty creepy: let's accuse them of violating the CFAA, before there were computers! Anyone defending them against this is defending Nazis, and worse, creepy Nazis! They are likely creepy as well! This creepy stuff seems to be contagious...
Since it can't be made too visible, Stallman's actual comments: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
If the aim of HN is to run a better forum for discussion then lying in a defamatory way about people should not be tolerated as part of civil discourse.