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

91–100 of 357 posts

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#91

Post by samantohermes »

partialrecall wrote: post #37
ceejayoz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So you believe Stallman's statements indicate he's a pedophile, not merely somebody with a long and established history of being tactless? Because I'd say there is a hell of a lot more evidence that he's tactless due to being neuroatypical. Maybe that makes him a bad leader, but it surely doesn't make him evil.

His statements aren't merely socially unappropriated, they are grossly logically incorrect.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#92

Post by frio »

codesushi42 wrote: post #78
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…

What the hell are you talking about? What intellectual level? Stallman is quoted to have said: Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.” How is that a rational, defensible statement in any terms?

I'm really hesitant to wade into this. I think resigning was the right move for Stallman.

What he actually said, without Vice editing the quote, is:

We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

From the email thread reproduced in its entirety by Vice at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420....

In my estimation, there's a big difference between Vice's framing of "Stallman said she was 'entirely willing'" and the full quote above. There are, of course, other poor comments in that thread.

EDIT -- I mention Vice specifically, because their article (which I'd read earlier) has similar phrasing to the wording used here (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist... -- "Stallman said the “most plausible scenario” is that one of Epstein’s underage victims was “entirely willing.”"), and I'd thought the quote that codesushi used was from that publication. On double checking, it might be unfair to single that publication out for the given quote.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#93

Post by ykevinator »

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…

In general yes, but he has some pedophilic tendencies in his writings.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#94

Post by throwaway1918 »

codesushi42 wrote: post #78
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…

What the hell are you talking about? What intellectual level? Stallman is quoted to have said: Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.” How is that a rational, defensible statement in any terms?

The problem here is that your quotation is wrong or misleading. The words you omitted do matter and do change the sense of it. Here is the actual paragraph:

"We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."

Say what you will about the inappropriateness of RMS's conduct or speech or timing, but you should not try to persuade people by misquoting him.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#95

Post by pvaldes »

wyldfire wrote: post #36
pvaldes wrote: post #22

What means CSAIL exactly? What are the responsabilities or goals of this role?

CSAIL is not a role, it's the institution: "MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory"

I understand, ok. And what where the actual role of Stallman in this laboratory?

Updated: explained below, answering to mail lists. Resigning does not seem like a big deal.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#96

Post by mikekchar »

gruez wrote: post #64
teh_klev wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

probably this: > Epstein was accused of trafficking: bringing people long distances on false pretenses and then pressured them into sex or prostitution. He also reportedly raped some of those people. I believe those accusations, and I think he deserved to be imprisoned. >Some of his victims were legally adult. Some were teenage minors. I don't think that makes any moral difference. I don't think rape is less wrong if…

The link does not contain the text you quoted (possibly because it is malformed). I also couldn't find that quote on a google search. Could you provide another link?

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#97

Post by traderjane »

gruez wrote: post #88
claudeganon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-w…

Some people enjoy secularism even if it brings a hard edge to those who desire a religiously wholesome society.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#98

Post by teh_klev »

gruez wrote: post #64
teh_klev wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

probably this: > Epstein was accused of trafficking: bringing people long distances on false pretenses and then pressured them into sex or prostitution. He also reportedly raped some of those people. I believe those accusations, and I think he deserved to be imprisoned. >Some of his victims were legally adult. Some were teenage minors. I don't think that makes any moral difference. I don't think rape is less wrong if…

>>Some of his victims were legally adult. Some were teenage minors. I don't think that makes any moral difference. I don't think rape is less wrong if the victim is over 16.

Sure, but if anyone bothers to read to the end of that sentence he says:

"I don't think that makes any moral difference. I don't think rape is less wrong if the victim is over 16."

He's not defending rape in any way shape or form, regardless of age.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#99

Post by dang »

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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20989962.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#100

Post by ceejayoz »

tw20190916jobdg wrote: post #86
ceejayoz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's a difference between "unpopular but everyone knows I'm quirky" and "this might be an existential threat to my ability to keep running the FSF etc.".
Post reply on HN