8 ms·

Richard Stallman Resigns from CSAIL and FSF

38 points by jes 7y ago

JBerlinsky 7y ago
Existing discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583
- lanevorockz 7y ago
  Any reason to duplicate the discussion?
  - etiam 7y ago
    Not on this basis. Forbes parrots much of the mischaracterizations.
- r721 7y ago
  Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20989696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20989696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992381
  - fenomas 7y ago
    To be fair, earlier submissions all got flagged off the front page fairly quickly, so later submitters may well not have known about them.
ecmascript 7y ago
Good article for me as someone who is entirely outside the news cycle about this. Pretty insane that you loose your job just because you have the wrong opinions about something. I don't understand why not FSF and others simply stand behind him in events like these? This is pretty ridiculous and I hate this PC-elite that is currently ruling tech. I don't care about your code of conduct or what your thoughts are about different words. I just hope Stallman the best and that he should not back down to the kind of bullshit that's been thrown on him. That is simply letting them win. Fuck everyone that has the "you said something that I do not like, now you must resign"-mentality.
- lukebitts 7y ago
  Simplifying the issue this much to boil it down to "a difference in opinions" is a bit dishonest. It was a very specific opinion that crossed the line, it's not like he said he prefers chocolate to vanilla.
  - ecmascript 7y ago
    That is what you think now, but just wait until chocolate vs vanilla is that opinion that you will get fired for. You never know. I would for example be glad to fire everyone that wanted him fired for the comments he made. If I get any sort of power, I will remember PC actions like this and utilize my power to battle it at any cost.
    - lukebitts 7y ago
      The slippery slope is a very tired argument. When people start getting fired for illegitimate reasons then I'll defend those people. The outcome of this specific situation seems rational, fair and expected. "Don't say controversial shit on the job" is a really low bar, even if what is controversial changes from time to time.
      - ecmascript 7y ago
        Nah man, the "dont say controversial shit on the job" is a very tired argument. The slippery slope is a real argument that is based in reality. Just look at events like this one and say to me with a straight face that is hasn't become 1000 times worse in the last couple of years. I say whatever I like and feel is fit for the current discussion. If you don't like that, you may choose not to hang with me. You decide for yourself, not for me. If you think your coworker is a shitty person because what their opinions are then quit the job, don't force others to do it in order for you to have a safe space. That is what I believe and fight for. People don't tend to realize that next time you may be the victim and then I'll defend you, the hate-crowd which you defend this time won't.
        7y ago
rrss 7y ago
We can imagine a number of scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that RMS presented himself as entirely willing to step down.
- criley2 7y ago
  His statement says he is stepping down due to misinterpretations and misunderstandings (AKA he stands by his statements), which IMO means he was given the ultimatum of "your job or your opinion" aka if he wanted to stay he would need to repudiate the things he said, and he likely chose to stand by his interpretation of the discussion and resign.
  - rrss 7y ago
    Read his recent emails and you'll understand my comment better.
- glofish 7y ago
  Excellent comment! It exposes the perfidiousness of Stallman's argument.
glofish 7y ago
I find it surprising to the extreme that a person like Stallmann, supposedly smart and well versed in legal matters lacks the understanding of how the legal system works: "Unintentional crime is still a crime." Unwittiness in committing a crime is, at best, a mitigating circumstance, that does not justify or excuse the conduct. The second issue is that does not matter what you and I (or Stallman) think. All that matters is what the law says - it is a crime when the law says so - we can't be going around redefining laws so that they don't apply when it does not suit us. The most one can hope for is to have a law redefined in a court of law (precedents, interpretations etc).
- cameldrv 7y ago
  Some unintentional crimes are crimes, but many, maybe most require intent. This is called mens rea and it’s so important you’ll learn it in your high school introduction to the law course.
  - glofish 7y ago
    Actually what we learn (or should learn in high school) is that pleading ignorance: "I did not know this or that" is a terrible starting argument for many crimes. This is what I was referring to in my observation. Stallman should know better than to argue ignorance. Beyond that, the law is complex and generalizations (which I myself did) run the risk of oversimplifying realities. I was specifically referring to this case, where Stallman argues that his friend was just misled. I believe that argument not just "tone deaf" but actually wrong.
wrs 7y ago
This comment is about Forbes, and news reporting, not Richard Stallman, so no flames please. Forbes twists the quote in the "topline" ("claimed [she] was 'entirely willing'"), then includes a more-complete quote two paragraphs later ("most likely 'presented herself to him as entirely willing'"). I don't know how an editor can see both of those things in their field of vision and think they're equivalent. Again, ignoring the actual topic completely for the purposes of this comment, this is a good example to frame on your wall of how the "content industry" will squeeze any nuance out of a statement to generate clicks.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Forbes probably felt compelled to write an article about this but also didn't want to go against the narrative and be accused of sympthathizing with someone who is now widely believed to be a pedophile apologist.
  - wrs 7y ago
    The misquote actually alters the narrative from “pedophile apologist” to “child slanderer”, since he’s supposedly declaring his knowledge of the mental state of the child concerned. Which, amazingly, is an even worse narrative.
- tzs 7y ago
  Even the more complete quote is out of context. The full context was: > 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 sent a comment to their "corrections" address. Newsguard gives Forbes the highest possible score. If that rating is accurate, they'll update the story.

38 points by jes 7y ago

JBerlinsky 7y ago

Existing discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583

lanevorockz 7y ago
Any reason to duplicate the discussion?
- etiam 7y ago
  Not on this basis. Forbes parrots much of the mischaracterizations.
r721 7y ago
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20989696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20989696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992381
- fenomas 7y ago
  To be fair, earlier submissions all got flagged off the front page fairly quickly, so later submitters may well not have known about them.

ecmascript 7y ago

Good article for me as someone who is entirely outside the news cycle about this. Pretty insane that you loose your job just because you have the wrong opinions about something. I don't understand why not FSF and others simply stand behind him in events like these? This is pretty ridiculous and I hate this PC-elite that is currently ruling tech. I don't care about your code of conduct or what your thoughts are about different words. I just hope Stallman the best and that he should not back down to the kind of bullshit that's been thrown on him. That is simply letting them win. Fuck everyone that has the "you said something that I do not like, now you must resign"-mentality.

lukebitts 7y ago
Simplifying the issue this much to boil it down to "a difference in opinions" is a bit dishonest. It was a very specific opinion that crossed the line, it's not like he said he prefers chocolate to vanilla.
- ecmascript 7y ago
  That is what you think now, but just wait until chocolate vs vanilla is that opinion that you will get fired for. You never know. I would for example be glad to fire everyone that wanted him fired for the comments he made. If I get any sort of power, I will remember PC actions like this and utilize my power to battle it at any cost.
  - lukebitts 7y ago
    The slippery slope is a very tired argument. When people start getting fired for illegitimate reasons then I'll defend those people. The outcome of this specific situation seems rational, fair and expected. "Don't say controversial shit on the job" is a really low bar, even if what is controversial changes from time to time.
    - ecmascript 7y ago
      Nah man, the "dont say controversial shit on the job" is a very tired argument. The slippery slope is a real argument that is based in reality. Just look at events like this one and say to me with a straight face that is hasn't become 1000 times worse in the last couple of years. I say whatever I like and feel is fit for the current discussion. If you don't like that, you may choose not to hang with me. You decide for yourself, not for me. If you think your coworker is a shitty person because what their opinions are then quit the job, don't force others to do it in order for you to have a safe space. That is what I believe and fight for. People don't tend to realize that next time you may be the victim and then I'll defend you, the hate-crowd which you defend this time won't.
      - 7y ago

rrss 7y ago

We can imagine a number of scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that RMS presented himself as entirely willing to step down.

criley2 7y ago
His statement says he is stepping down due to misinterpretations and misunderstandings (AKA he stands by his statements), which IMO means he was given the ultimatum of "your job or your opinion" aka if he wanted to stay he would need to repudiate the things he said, and he likely chose to stand by his interpretation of the discussion and resign.
- rrss 7y ago
  Read his recent emails and you'll understand my comment better.
glofish 7y ago
Excellent comment! It exposes the perfidiousness of Stallman's argument.

glofish 7y ago

I find it surprising to the extreme that a person like Stallmann, supposedly smart and well versed in legal matters lacks the understanding of how the legal system works: "Unintentional crime is still a crime." Unwittiness in committing a crime is, at best, a mitigating circumstance, that does not justify or excuse the conduct. The second issue is that does not matter what you and I (or Stallman) think. All that matters is what the law says - it is a crime when the law says so - we can't be going around redefining laws so that they don't apply when it does not suit us. The most one can hope for is to have a law redefined in a court of law (precedents, interpretations etc).

cameldrv 7y ago
Some unintentional crimes are crimes, but many, maybe most require intent. This is called mens rea and it’s so important you’ll learn it in your high school introduction to the law course.
- glofish 7y ago
  Actually what we learn (or should learn in high school) is that pleading ignorance: "I did not know this or that" is a terrible starting argument for many crimes. This is what I was referring to in my observation. Stallman should know better than to argue ignorance. Beyond that, the law is complex and generalizations (which I myself did) run the risk of oversimplifying realities. I was specifically referring to this case, where Stallman argues that his friend was just misled. I believe that argument not just "tone deaf" but actually wrong.

wrs 7y ago

This comment is about Forbes, and news reporting, not Richard Stallman, so no flames please. Forbes twists the quote in the "topline" ("claimed [she] was 'entirely willing'"), then includes a more-complete quote two paragraphs later ("most likely 'presented herself to him as entirely willing'"). I don't know how an editor can see both of those things in their field of vision and think they're equivalent. Again, ignoring the actual topic completely for the purposes of this comment, this is a good example to frame on your wall of how the "content industry" will squeeze any nuance out of a statement to generate clicks.

whamlastxmas 7y ago
Forbes probably felt compelled to write an article about this but also didn't want to go against the narrative and be accused of sympthathizing with someone who is now widely believed to be a pedophile apologist.
- wrs 7y ago
  The misquote actually alters the narrative from “pedophile apologist” to “child slanderer”, since he’s supposedly declaring his knowledge of the mental state of the child concerned. Which, amazingly, is an even worse narrative.
tzs 7y ago
Even the more complete quote is out of context. The full context was: > 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 sent a comment to their "corrections" address. Newsguard gives Forbes the highest possible score. If that rating is accurate, they'll update the story.