‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties (2001)

154 points · 106 comments · B1FF_PSUVM

  1. xlayn · · focus · HN ↗
    Every time "these type of people" are dismissed as lunatics, as extremist and alarmist, time comes back to prove they were right.

    I frankly dismissed the idea of "a group of extremely powerful and rich pedos" under a pizza store... and yes there were none under any pizza store.

    1. sroerick · · focus · HN ↗
      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2019&#x2F;09&#x2F;17&#x2F;761718975&#x2F;free-software-pioneer-quits-mit-over-his-comments-on-epstein-sex-trafficking-cas" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2019&#x2F;09&#x2F;17&#x2F;761718975&#x2F;free-software-pione...
      1. F3nd0 · · focus · HN ↗
        How is the link relevant to the topic at hand?
        1. blagie · · focus · HN ↗
          I think it&#x27;s a good, analogous, contemporary example of how RMS tends to be misunderstood.

          In this context, his comments tend to be:

          a) Correct, if you read them precisely (which is how RMS writes -- precisely)

          b) Horrible, if you read them with the subtext implied in mainstream culture (which is how people read what RMS writes)

          That combination results in &quot;with the terrorists&quot; in 2001, &quot;with Epstein&quot; in 2026, and a lot of similar things in between.

          Coincidentally, it&#x27;s highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. All the people thrown under the bus by MIT were either the people who acted ethically and came forward or, like Minsky, were dead. All the people who did unethical things didn&#x27;t come forward, and are in the Epstein files. Not all the MIT folks in the Epstein files did unethical things, but many presumably did....

          The MIT transparency report is worth reading in the light of the release. MIT had most of that information about its faculty at the time.

          1. beedeebeedee · · focus · HN ↗
            &gt; Coincidentally, it&#x27;s highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong.

            Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein&#x27;s island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that.

            I am a big fan of Stallman&#x27;s work and his views considering computer science and its role in society, but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.

            1. worik · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.

              The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent

              I have huge respect for RMS. Being this wrong once shows the bad way (we) men of a certain age were raised. The idea that sexual assault must involve violence or the threat of violence is old, out of date, and at one point RMS held it along with society at large

              Times change, and as we get older we need to change with them.

              1. F3nd0 · · focus · HN ↗
                In this instance, Stallman was arguing semantics. His long-term criticism [1] is that ‘sexual assault’ is being used to cover a wide range of wrongful actions, where a more nuanced terminology to distinguish between them would be more appropriate. That in itself doesn’t imply he finds any of those actions acceptable, only that he’d like them to have more specific names.

                He might not have picked a good time and place to share his terminological views, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them per se.

                [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stallman.org&#x2F;antiglossary.html#assault" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stallman.org&#x2F;antiglossary.html#assault

                1. beedeebeedee · · focus · HN ↗
                  From the article, Stallman said &quot;We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.&quot;

                  That expresses an extreme obtuseness about human behavior and a lack of nuance. A 17 year old is a child.

                  1. blagie · · focus · HN ↗
                    This is not correct.

                    This expresses an extreme inability to properly communicate subtext, which is common for autistic individuals, or ones autism-adjacent.

                    Stallman&#x27;s comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman&#x27;s comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things.

                    This is called a miscommunication.

                    1. beedeebeedee · · focus · HN ↗
                      &gt; Stallman&#x27;s comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman&#x27;s comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things.

                      That&#x27;s not true. I understand the drive to categorize it as such, but if you look at the context of what he said, which is even mentioned in that article, you will realize that this is not a &quot;definitional&quot; issue or have anything to do with strict precision of terms.

                      That is a red herring that you are getting stuck on and using to defend him. I don&#x27;t care about whether or not he thinks they are applying a word that he disagrees on the definition. I will cede that if you wish, because it is besides the point and not what he is actually arguing.

                      He (like you) is making the claim:

                      &gt; Coincidentally, it&#x27;s highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong.

                      That is demonstrably an incorrect statemet. We may not a definitive morality that I can point to you and we both agree to the letter, but a 73 year old man should have the wisdom to recognize that sleeping with children is damaging to children even if they appear willing.

                      I will grant that Minsky&#x27;s participation was probably not the most damaging thing in her life, but he chose to participate and he harmed her, contrary to what you and Stallman are claiming. It is unfortunate that we have many men (and women) who believe and like Stallman and Minsky. It shows that we need to address this and train ourselves better, so that everybody is on the same page when it comes to how we let children develop in our culture.

                      1. blagie · · focus · HN ↗
                        I&#x27;m not sure how to respond to this, except to point out that in a second comment, you finally conceded this:

                        &gt; Minsky&#x27;s participation

                        Did not happen.

                        The polite thing would be to apologize.

                        And this:

                        &gt; if you look at the context of what he said

                        Would require you to share context. People have a history of sharing an article about an article about an article about what Stallman said.

                        When I go back to the source, he does have an extreme case of foot-in-mouth, but I have seen nothing from primary sources which would justify the smear campaign. Usually, the &quot;context&quot; is a conversation about terrorists or whatnot, Stallman making some academic point, and the &quot;context&quot; labelling him as &quot;with the terrorists.&quot; Stallman:

                        - Can&#x27;t read the room

                        - Doesn&#x27;t follow the context

                        - Speaks precisely

                        Let me be blunt: You&#x27;re smearing good people who worked to improve the world. That&#x27;s not cool. It&#x27;s also something which does broader harm than you might imagine. It means all but the most thick-skinned won&#x27;t want to get into positions like Minsky or Stallman.

                        The Minsky situation was MIT looking for a fall-man.

                        The Stallman one dates back to Microsoft&#x27;s engineered astroturf campaign, back when they were anti-FLOSS.

                        Why the fuck would I ever want to pick a fight with a corporation doing something nasty, if the result would be people like you calling me a pedophile?

                        The reason I give people a very large amount of benefit-of-the-doubt is because I&#x27;ve seen the effect these engineered smear campaigns have on individuals. I&#x27;ve also seen the amount of crazy that happens when one is famous. If a million people know who you are, and 0.01% do something crazy -- obsessive false accusations, bomb threats, or whatnot -- that&#x27;s still a hundred people. Britney Spears or Zuckerberg will have security teams, legal teams, and PR teams to handle that. People who, like Stallman, are fundamentally doing something for the public benefit have the same pressure from crazies, astroturf, and whatnot, but without the ability to afford a defence.

                        1. beedeebeedee · · focus · HN ↗
                          &gt;&gt; Minsky&#x27;s participation

                          &gt; Did not happen

                          Unless you have special knowledge that the public does not have you do not know that and need to stop basing your argument on it

                          1. blagie · · focus · HN ↗
                            I do, and I replied elsewhere.

                            You need to stop basing your argument on a smear campaigns and obvious red herrings.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.