9 ms·
Twitter has become a breeding ground for mobs and unjustified moral policing. I started following people based on the technical work they have done and was hopi
by hackworks 7y ago
Twitter has become a breeding ground for mobs and unjustified moral policing.
I started following people based on the technical work they have done and was hoping to learn or get inspired them.
Apart from a very few, every accomplished technologist have started using Twitter and their followers to attack others. This is nothing but the witch hunt from medieval times done differently.
I have interacted with RMS in Emacs developer list, he has a strong opinion and nothing more, nothing less. He is not trying to create a mob and nor is he starting an upraising. If you have an opinion, voice it and leave it. Yes, I agree RMS needed a PR to tread the land mine ridden modern life.
Overall, it is sad to see RMS and his work getting trivialized for totally unrelated reasons.
- k__ 7y agoWhile I resent most these attacks, the "I'm only here for the tech" stand, many tech-people have, deeply disgusts me. Edit: I'm not saying the work of a person can't be good if he did bad things. I think it's important not to glorify people. Free software is important for all of us, but so is a stand against sexsim or the likes.
- ehonda 7y agoAre you saying it disgusts you when they choose to keep their political opinions private? How come?
- kgraves 7y agoBecause to them, everything IS political.
- mcphage 7y agoBecause only certain people are in a position to be able to keep their political opinions private. For many people, the very fact of their life is inherently a political statement. So the "keep political opinions private" crowd is merely the people who can keep their opinions private telling everyone else to clear out.
- spoovy 7y ago"the very fact of their life is inherently a political statement" Yup, we reached peak. Taxi to Dignitas please..
- k__ 7y agoThey don't. The want of keeping tech and politics appart is a political choice in itself.
- lostjohnny 7y agoWhy are you here?
- utopian3 7y agoWhen I started on HN ten years ago, it was only about tech & professional growth. Only in the last few years have the politics and outrage taken over this forum and it “deeply disgusts me.”
- k__ 7y agoIt's okay if you want to stick at nothing, but you have to live with the fact that some people resent you fo it.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 7y agoHN was much smaller and more homogenous 10 years ago.
- justaguyhere 7y agoJust curious, why? For example, if one wants to enjoy Picasso's paintings without getting bothered about how he treated people in his life, it is their choice, isn't it? If someone wants to concentrate only on the tech and ignore the rest, that is also their choice, isn't it? Not saying one view is better or worse than the other. Simply pointing out people choose to get involved at different levels...
- mantoto 7y agoI personally try to avoid art from pedophiles and murderer and rapists. I argue that art always happens in context and one context is who did it. Appreating art from someone who is clearly hurting others can't have done something so important to me to still enjoy it. If a case is made which has some very rare and difficult scenario I'm not sure what I would do.
- lostjohnny 7y agoYou should never come to Rome then...
- magduf 7y agoProbably Greece too, or any other ancient place.
- toyg 7y ago> I personally try to avoid art from pedophiles and murderer Guess you avoid Caravaggio too, then.
- mantoto 7y agoSooo you mean Michelangelo right? At least on Wikipedia there it is stated that there is no proper source. Also I try to. If it is very significant part of history I would try to be aware of it and still have a look. I'm also very unsure about Alice in wonderland for the same reason. But at least it's not someone still alive which would benefit from his/her art and being pedo right?
- sn41 7y agoSorry, but I do strongly believe in this. The work stands apart from the man. As a kid, I loved Lord Byron's poetry. Later, disgusted at his personality, I stopped reading his works. Still later, now I realise that flawed human beings can create beautiful works. Such is life.
- k__ 7y agoIt's okay to acknowledge good work but it's also important to see when brilliant people do wrong and not go all "but look at his good work".
- zzzzzzzza 7y agoYea buuuut that's not even what's happening here. People are wildly misrepresenting stallman's position. To me it just seems like a certain subset of neurotypical people discriminating against people who don't see the world through 15 layers of social obfuscation/are actually honest about what they are thinking.
- k__ 7y agoDid they really? My interpretation: You think people are criticizing Stallman because you think they misread his statement (She wanted it anyway) I think people are criticizing Stallman because he believed Minsky was tricked (She didn't want but people made here act like it), which sounds dubious to me.
- zzzzzzzza 7y agoFirstly, I'm not sure how to parse your grammar, secondly, it's hilarious that it seems you are now assuming that I am claiming that "she wanted it". This just goes to show you are here for blood and not justice. thirdly, what stallman said: The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way,” Stallman wrote in the email, “but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.” and to paraphrase "It seems probable that she presented herself as entirely willing and that minsky did not know she was underage" lastly, as far as I can tell, in the deposition it's not clear that they did have sex, only that she went to the island for the purpose of having sex with minsky under orders from epstein, presumably as part of his blackmail/entrapment scheme
- brobdingnagians 7y agoI think it is a reaction to the politicization of society. A lot of people recognize that there is a polarization of society, but they don't want to become involved in a culture war or war of words, so they try to maintain their hobby as a neutral zone. That is a good thing. It is trying to find a way to work together with others who have differing views without letting it get in the way of "being friends" with them in furthering a good cause. You don't have to support the red team, or the blue team, you can just support the tech team and work with very different people without letting that get in the way.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago"Child sex trafficking: good or bad?" isn't political, or really an opinion.
- rnernento 7y agoDid you read the original email Stallman sent? Please enlighten me as to how he in any way insinuates child sex trafficking is good.
- vasili111 7y agoCan you please share the link to original email?
- rnernento 7y agohttps://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... From the article: "The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. 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. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism."
- oraphalous 7y agoWhat I find deeply ironic is that you probably only have a frame of belief that finds a politically neutral frame of engagement with tech 'deeply disgusting' precisely because of the tech that was created under that neutral rubric - tech that probably would never have been created under a more politically engaged rubric... Why? Because such neutrality allowed the creation of a space where people could express anything to everyone at a cost that was practically free. If the creators had been more politically engaged - that never would have happened. It would have been locked down from the start. Now - if you go looking for it - you'll find studies that observe what happens when human group sizes increase. More "punisher" type personalities emerge, applying greater social costs on expression in an attempt to enforce hegemony. I would cite - but feeling lazy. In response to the ever increasing social costs imposed by such punishers - the ones who created the free for all in the first place, turn more desperately to their stated neutrality... largely as a means to avoid punishment. The punisher types won't accept this - because they want to root out dissenters hiding in their neutrality... so begin punishing those who don't proactively state their right minded political stances in every space. They apply such punishment for example - by statements of "deep disgust"... as though this hyperbolic reaction is not hyperbole at all; as though the mere act of not engaging is the worst of moral failings. I would be terrified of such people... I would be terrified of you - if it weren't for the aforementioned irony with which I opened. You just do it cause game theoretically you are predicted to do so - because of the system brought into being by exactly the sort of people you hate. We deserve you. Kinda like how the AI in the Matrix deserve the mathematical anomaly called Neo. They can't get rid of it. But they created it... This thing that wars against them, under the heroic illusion of its own agency and righteous purpose.
- k__ 7y agoI don't know if you're right or wrong. I have the feeling the state of mind wasn't really neutral in the past, so there wasn't a neutral time that created all this. There was much more gate-keeping going on in the past. I think this cost us much more innovation and new technology. My impression is as following: I don't think we move from non-political to political and from "free for all" to "only the good are allowed". We are moving from one political strucuture that prevented some kind of people to cobtribute to another. I'm not sure if this will yield better results, but I certainly hope so. Also, I think the good tech/ideas of the past shoudn't be thrown away, because if we throw them away the people who created them did bad stuff to other people, the victims did suffer in vain. But we should strife for creating things in the future with less suffering.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 7y agoEspecially because if you really believe in just here for the tech and also believe that ideas should stand alone all of this shit should be penned by a pusedonym.
- navigatesol 7y ago>While I resent most these attacks, the "I'm only here for the tech" stand, many tech-people have, deeply disgusts me. Is it surprising? How many people here work for horrible companies, and justify it to themselves by simply following directions? In a similar discussion the other day, a user literally wrote that they would have to be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings their company is involved with so as not to interrupt their lifestyle. Disgusting, yes.
- magduf 7y ago>In a similar discussion the other day, a user literally wrote that they would have to be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings their company is involved with so as not to interrupt their lifestyle. There's nothing disgusting about this, assuming that the wrong-doings are really bad and this would all go public. Society does not treat whistleblowers well. They generally lose their livelihoods when they go public with what they know. So yes, they should be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings, because they're usually ending their careers when they do this. If society isn't willing to stop ruining their careers when they "do the right thing", then society has no standing to call them "disgusting" for not willingly sacrificing their lives for the sake of truth.
- navigatesol 7y agoI'll never understand how an individual can be so weak as to commit crimes because they were "told" to. >then society has no standing to call them "disgusting" for not willingly sacrificing their lives for the sake of truth. A tad over dramatic. We aren't talking about Snowden here; hundreds of HN users work for the major companies doing morally ambiguous things. They aren't going to be blacklisted for spilling the beans on Facebook. In fact, in this political climate they might even benefit greatly. If you're willing to harm other people in order to avoid potential harm to yourself, it's disgusting, and no amount of "but what about me?" will convince me otherwise.
- magduf 7y agoI never said anything about committing crimes. I'm just talking about people working at these companies. You really think that every single person working at Facebook is a criminal? You have issues. Do you also think every single person working at an oil company is a criminal too, or should quit or else be morally wrong in your view? >hundreds of HN users work for the major companies doing morally ambiguous things. Just about every company in America does morally ambiguous things.
- noobermin 7y agoOne of the problems of cancel culture is #everyonedoesit. At some point, all of us have niche issues where we feel powerless in our individual lives, yet feel empowered when the mob goes up against individual X for something we care about. I'm convinced at this point everyone indeed does it, from the right to the left and so on. People treat it as a weapon reserved for those they hate and unfairness when applied to themselves or people they like. I'm not sure what the answer is, more empathy might help, but part of me feels like with everything else going on all of it stems from a deeper disintegration in US society where people feel like they've lost control of their own lives. These are just symptoms of that.
- cameronbrown 7y agoTo further your point, Trump and Brexit are also symptoms of the same issue. I do not think 48:52 was a coincidence at all, the entire western world has been cut in half it feels. Worrying times.
- noobermin 7y agoI don't know why you're getting downvoted, but I too feel like they are symptoms, and the longer people take to pick up on that the longer it will take to fix things, if at all.
- colechristensen 7y agoHe 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. Is that unrelated, trivial behavior that should be ignored? This isn't a witch hunt, what he did was wildly inappropriate and the number of people defending his behavior because he's quirky and did great things is a little disgusting.
- ai_ja_nai 7y agoThe point is that nothing like that ever happened. Can you really picture Minsky, a philosopher disconnected enough from the reality to spend his whole life disserting about thinking machines, on a billionaire island having sex with teens? And, for standing against this picture (which is just too good to dismiss as BS for the SJWs out there), RMS is being crucifixed.
- flycaliguy 7y agoThere is a bit of modern history about lonely philosophical guys spending their whole life disserting things in the Catholic Church actually.
- urbanjunkie 7y agoyour outrage and alt-right virtue-signalling is hilarious.
- colechristensen 7y agoIt doesn't matter if it didn't happen, RMS was defending Minsky in the situation that it did by saying the girl who was less than a quarter of his age would have appeared willing. Defending statutory rape, even hypothetically, will get you fired. It's not a crucifixion.
- vorpalhex 7y agoEven if it did happen, it may not meet the bar for statutory rape because the girl was 17. So now you've crucified an innocent man, for offering a defense of his friend, who may also be innocent of what he's accused of, when what he's accused of may not even be criminal. Really saving the world there.