3 ms·

I don't know much about Stallman, but he does seem to be fond of saying "well, technically..." in discussions where it's pretty tone deaf and easy to misconstru

I don't know much about Stallman, but he does seem to be fond of saying "well, technically..." in discussions where it's pretty tone deaf and easy to misconstrue, in a similar way to some discussions on HN itself. As someone says in the email thread, "If we're debating the definitions of 'rape' and 'sexual assault', perhaps it's better to accept that this conversation isn't productive. When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL community." But the initial coverage, particularly the Daily Beast article, does seem like a real hatchet job. There's a big difference between what the Daily Beast headline implied he said: "Victims were 'entirely willing'" and what he actually said, when discussing how much fault attaches to Minsky: "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." Edit: link to a PDF of the email thread from Vice is https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...

rayiner 7y ago
I agree with your sentiment: sometimes there is a place for speaking with moral clarity rather than utmost precision. That said, the piece on RMS is deceitful. Manipulative headlines have been common in the media for awhile, but the hatchet jobs are becoming more brazen: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20847587/leif-olson-department-labor-anti-semitism-paul-nehlen-bloomberg https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20847587/le...
- Udik 7y ago
  > sometimes there is a place for speaking with moral clarity rather than utmost precision. Accusing people imprecisely of horrible crimes doesn't seem a moral action at all. Let's start discussing the morality of those who do so.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gizmo686 7y ago
He seems to be fond of saying "well, technically" on every subject; regardless of if it is tone deaf. I don't want to pathologize Stallman, but I have a simmilar tendency, so I will project myself a bit here; and probably go a bit of a rant. This tendency stems from a way of thinking about the world. Inaccuracies build on themselves, so it is generally best to stamp them out when we can. If the technicality is not actually important, then surely everyone involved would have no problem with the correction. They may be annoyed that they had to spend a few minutes on clarifying such an obvious point. What happens with the kind of discussion that Stallman entered into is just weird. People seem to get deeply offended by the person stating the technicality while claiming that the technicality is not important and without even disagreeing with the technicality. This reaction (which seems to be consistent for the topic in question) has the almost tautological effect of excluding an entire class of thinkers from being able to participate in the conversation (or rather an entire class of thinking; some people are more able to switch between modes of thinking easier than others). I am obviously biased in this regard, but I happen to think this does a massive disservice to people who actually care about the issue, because I believe that this excluded mode of thinking happens to be extremely effective at problem solving. > "If we're debating the definitions of 'rape' and 'sexual assault', perhaps it's better to accept that this conversation isn't productive." If you are concerned about rape and sexual assault then discussing what those words mean is a vital part of dealing with the issue. It often illuminates the underlying reality as thinking about definitions involves considering the details of what you are trying to talk about, and definantly illuminates the conversation as you do not have different people thinking the same statement means different things. If you catagorically reject these discussions, then I do not see how you can go on to effectivly deal with the underlying issue.
- arrrg 7y ago
  Talking about technicalities is an extremely common derailing tactic. So that’s the reason why people are upset about technicalities that don’t matter. They derail discussions and it doesn’t even matter if it’s intentional or not. They are just corrosive and destructive.

rayiner 7y ago

I agree with your sentiment: sometimes there is a place for speaking with moral clarity rather than utmost precision. That said, the piece on RMS is deceitful. Manipulative headlines have been common in the media for awhile, but the hatchet jobs are becoming more brazen: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20847587/leif-olson-department-labor-anti-semitism-paul-nehlen-bloomberg https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20847587/le...

Udik 7y ago
> sometimes there is a place for speaking with moral clarity rather than utmost precision. Accusing people imprecisely of horrible crimes doesn't seem a moral action at all. Let's start discussing the morality of those who do so.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gizmo686 7y ago

He seems to be fond of saying "well, technically" on every subject; regardless of if it is tone deaf. I don't want to pathologize Stallman, but I have a simmilar tendency, so I will project myself a bit here; and probably go a bit of a rant. This tendency stems from a way of thinking about the world. Inaccuracies build on themselves, so it is generally best to stamp them out when we can. If the technicality is not actually important, then surely everyone involved would have no problem with the correction. They may be annoyed that they had to spend a few minutes on clarifying such an obvious point. What happens with the kind of discussion that Stallman entered into is just weird. People seem to get deeply offended by the person stating the technicality while claiming that the technicality is not important and without even disagreeing with the technicality. This reaction (which seems to be consistent for the topic in question) has the almost tautological effect of excluding an entire class of thinkers from being able to participate in the conversation (or rather an entire class of thinking; some people are more able to switch between modes of thinking easier than others). I am obviously biased in this regard, but I happen to think this does a massive disservice to people who actually care about the issue, because I believe that this excluded mode of thinking happens to be extremely effective at problem solving. > "If we're debating the definitions of 'rape' and 'sexual assault', perhaps it's better to accept that this conversation isn't productive." If you are concerned about rape and sexual assault then discussing what those words mean is a vital part of dealing with the issue. It often illuminates the underlying reality as thinking about definitions involves considering the details of what you are trying to talk about, and definantly illuminates the conversation as you do not have different people thinking the same statement means different things. If you catagorically reject these discussions, then I do not see how you can go on to effectivly deal with the underlying issue.

arrrg 7y ago
Talking about technicalities is an extremely common derailing tactic. So that’s the reason why people are upset about technicalities that don’t matter. They derail discussions and it doesn’t even matter if it’s intentional or not. They are just corrosive and destructive.