9 ms·

Let's be honest, the people who disagree with your comment are worried that eventually someone will out them for their terrible behavior as well! It's shocking

by ixtli 7y ago

Let's be honest, the people who disagree with your comment are worried that eventually someone will out them for their terrible behavior as well! It's shocking to me how unaccustomed to being held accountable some people are. Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society.

linksnapzz 7y ago
I'm totally certain you've sifted properly all possible consequences, as well as what does and does not constitute accountability....
hutzlibu 7y ago
Welcome to online witch hunt. Anyone defending the witch is probably a witch as well. How about a rational debate concerning factual things? I have allmost no background information, knew RMS only as the weird FSF guru .. and it is very hard for me to find facts. Most of the debate is about other stuff, than what actually happened. edit: so apparently all of it started with this: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... A rant by a female MIT student, offended by something she rad of RMS she did not know before. She writes very emotional, but much better, in terms of facts, than what vice etc. made out of it
- ixtli 7y ago
  > rational debate > factual things its getting increasingly boring to have to engage with people who don't see the irony in a belief that they can be an objective observer of what is "factual" and "rational" in their lives.
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    Yeah yeah, all information is through a subjective bubble, we can only make approximations to truth, blah blah. Save your thoughts for beginners philosophy course. That is nothing new. Of couse "factual" means, "as factual as possible". Meaning all the accusations, which apparently have been written, listed clearly.
    - ixtli 7y ago
      Ok cool i just wanna leave a choice snippet from the vice coverage of the emails here so we can all be on the same page about what we're doing devils advocate for here: > Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him. > In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.” These are totally reasonable things normal people say!
      - hutzlibu 7y ago
        Those snippets are just not enough information, to judge someone "normal" or not. (assuming "not normal" means sick in a clinical or criminal way) Because, to that sentence: “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.” I would agree. I simply define "rape" as sex that was enforced, usually with physical violence or threat of it. Or maybe existential threats of other kind. Mixing that term with consensual sex with a 17 year old is not helpful to actual victims of rape, I believe. Consider a couple of both 17 ... all ok. Now one of them turns 18 and now their relationship is rape? That does not make sense. Now there is surely a difference between 17 with 18 and 17 with 70, but I really believe it is not the same category as "rape". Exploitive maybe, depending on the situation. And if in the concrete situation it was actually not consensual, than it also actually might have been rape. I simply don't know that situation and trying to make sense of it. But that small sentence from RMS alone does not justify any witch hunt. And to those claim: "Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked." I would like a actual quote from RMS, that he actually said that.
      - octocop 7y ago
        Read the actual email chain
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Yes and anyone who disagrees with you is probably on a witch hunt /s
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  Now to make my own conclusion: Yes, RMS seems to be a sexist, unsensible at least, maybe not fit to lead such a position, but the media coverage about it is disgusting and misleading. But so is also some of the criticism of the women who started it. She seemed to be really upset about it and not just a "attention whore". Because there still is lots of sexism in the IT nerd world and being a man I can only try to understand what it means, when you try to show good computer work, but get sexually responses instead. So she reacts different, when she sees the sign on his door: " knights for justice (also hot ladies)" to which I would think, stupid maybe, but not to be taken too serious. But I am not a women. I do not have to avoid his office to not fear sexual mollesting, which apparently quite some students experienced.
tossAfterUsing 7y ago
I disagree with Cole's comment, and i think yours is designed to suggest that my disagreement makes me an unaccountable creep. That's totally bogus, and I think you should consider the consequences that your speech is already having on the people around you.
- ixtli 7y ago
  It's designed to suggest that richard stallman's comments are exactly what a creep would sound like and blind defense of him without acknowledging this fact doesn't win anyone any points. Personally I love the guy and his weird contributions to the field. But how can you look at this and not think "wow thats not ok to say" no matter what we can consider he may have meant after the fact?
  - odessacubbage 7y ago
    insofar as we have no evidence or inclination to believe that rms has engaged in any criminal behavior or wrongdoing or abuse of his position, why should it matter at all whether what he says is or is not 'ok'? people say stupid shit all the time, none more so than yourself.
  - tossAfterUsing 7y ago
    > "wow thats not ok to say" I read what he wrote, and i DO think it's okay to say. Further more i think it's RIGHT to have said it, publicly, especially by a person of his standing. It took an incredible amount of courage and determination for rms to have the impact that he's had on the world. And now, he's been cancelled. This is a bad sign.
keiferski 7y ago
> Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society. Let's consider the logical conclusions of "society" being able to inflict consequences upon someone if they speak an unpopular opinion. If you're an individual human being, it's likely that you have at least one opinion about something that isn't inline with the overarching culture. The particular issue of Epstein or Stallman or whomever is irrelevant; while you may agree with the mob in this case, next week or next month you might not. Under your proposition, that leaves you with three options: 1. Keep your opinion to yourself and refrain from telling anyone for fear of reprisal. In other words, self-censorship. 2. Changing your opinion to match society's, out of fear of being ostracized. 3. Expressing your opinion and then having your personal or professional life ruined, or at the very least, affected to the point where you suffer financially, mentally, emotionally, or socially. Which of those three options sounds beneficial to you?
- ixtli 7y ago
  You're describing life in every single society that has ever existed. Do you really believe that any of these things don't happen today or that there's been a place where they didn't happen? Further, all of your "options" sound amazing if what the person is doing is calling human trafficking victims "willing." It turns out that there is a difference between good and bad things. AND it's actually possible to determine which is which! This notion that a social technology such as public opinion can be used in a negative way is not some sort of revelation. Weapons only have the morality of those that deploy them. Just as we must decry immoral use we must also celebrate moral use, otherwise we'll be living in a society where people can claim that victims of sexual violence were "willing."
  - keiferski 7y ago
    I'm purely arguing against the idea of there being serious consequences for merely expressing an unpopular opinion.
    - ixtli 7y ago
      And what im saying is that 1) there are material consequences for "expressing an unpopular opinion." some of which aren't up to the person expressing them. 2) those determining the consequences, such as the organizations that let RMS go, are and should be allowed the freedom to self-govern in this way. they are well within their right to refuse to be associated with people who say these things.
spatular 7y ago
Um, I'm actually worried that I or other person will be punished for something that they didn't do. In the third world country I live in you'd have to accuse someone and then bribe the judge. Turns out that in US one don't even have to bribe anyone, mob will lynch them. You just need to accuse them of right things; e.g. stealing and homicide won't do. Is that the progress that humanity has made?
- loeg 7y ago
  You (and to be fair, others) are using "lynch" grossly inappropriately here.
  - spatular 7y ago
    Let's see: - judged by angry mob -- yes, - no ability to defend oneself -- yes, - killed -- no (though seeing polarization and level of anger here it's possible that he'll be eventually physically assulted), - person demolished, life ruined -- yes (Stallman got removed from the org he created, got fired from his work. Another poster here written that his friend got accused, defended in court with hard evidence, life is still ruined). Comparison with lynching seems fair to me. All of this got me thinking about creating, you know, accepting tech community where everyone is free to express their own opinions. I'm personally fine with my code being called shit and me being called dumbass for a good measure, just tell me what you really think and we'll sort things out faster instead sugar-coating stuff to not hurt my ego.
    - loeg 7y ago
      Lynching has a specific context in the United States; it has the history and connotation of racist terrorism. No one dislikes Stallman on the basis of the color of his skin, and no one is murdering him. The use is a grossly inappropriate metaphor that diminishes the real meaning of the word.
      - spatular 7y ago
        Well racism connotations permeat everything in US, it's overheated/taboo topic there. Not so much in the rest of the world, see two top dictionary definitions from google: To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry. (Law) (tr) (of a mob) to punish (a person) for some supposed offence by hanging without a trial. Nothing about racism here. The only thing that doesn't apply to Stallman is that he has not been hanged. That's quite important one. Though words are sometimes used not in their literary meaning (like "I'm killing it" -- well hopefully not). BTW from what I've gathered this entire thing happened because Stallman was pedantic and has written something along "let's be precise with words, I think what happened was not rape, but statuatory rape because of such and such".

by ixtli 7y ago

linksnapzz 7y ago

I'm totally certain you've sifted properly all possible consequences, as well as what does and does not constitute accountability....

hutzlibu 7y ago

Welcome to online witch hunt. Anyone defending the witch is probably a witch as well. How about a rational debate concerning factual things? I have allmost no background information, knew RMS only as the weird FSF guru .. and it is very hard for me to find facts. Most of the debate is about other stuff, than what actually happened. edit: so apparently all of it started with this: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... A rant by a female MIT student, offended by something she rad of RMS she did not know before. She writes very emotional, but much better, in terms of facts, than what vice etc. made out of it

ixtli 7y ago
> rational debate > factual things its getting increasingly boring to have to engage with people who don't see the irony in a belief that they can be an objective observer of what is "factual" and "rational" in their lives.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  Yeah yeah, all information is through a subjective bubble, we can only make approximations to truth, blah blah. Save your thoughts for beginners philosophy course. That is nothing new. Of couse "factual" means, "as factual as possible". Meaning all the accusations, which apparently have been written, listed clearly.
  - ixtli 7y ago
    Ok cool i just wanna leave a choice snippet from the vice coverage of the emails here so we can all be on the same page about what we're doing devils advocate for here: > Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him. > In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.” These are totally reasonable things normal people say!
    - hutzlibu 7y ago
      Those snippets are just not enough information, to judge someone "normal" or not. (assuming "not normal" means sick in a clinical or criminal way) Because, to that sentence: “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.” I would agree. I simply define "rape" as sex that was enforced, usually with physical violence or threat of it. Or maybe existential threats of other kind. Mixing that term with consensual sex with a 17 year old is not helpful to actual victims of rape, I believe. Consider a couple of both 17 ... all ok. Now one of them turns 18 and now their relationship is rape? That does not make sense. Now there is surely a difference between 17 with 18 and 17 with 70, but I really believe it is not the same category as "rape". Exploitive maybe, depending on the situation. And if in the concrete situation it was actually not consensual, than it also actually might have been rape. I simply don't know that situation and trying to make sense of it. But that small sentence from RMS alone does not justify any witch hunt. And to those claim: "Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked." I would like a actual quote from RMS, that he actually said that.
    - octocop 7y ago
      Read the actual email chain
colechristensen 7y ago
Yes and anyone who disagrees with you is probably on a witch hunt /s
hutzlibu 7y ago
Now to make my own conclusion: Yes, RMS seems to be a sexist, unsensible at least, maybe not fit to lead such a position, but the media coverage about it is disgusting and misleading. But so is also some of the criticism of the women who started it. She seemed to be really upset about it and not just a "attention whore". Because there still is lots of sexism in the IT nerd world and being a man I can only try to understand what it means, when you try to show good computer work, but get sexually responses instead. So she reacts different, when she sees the sign on his door: " knights for justice (also hot ladies)" to which I would think, stupid maybe, but not to be taken too serious. But I am not a women. I do not have to avoid his office to not fear sexual mollesting, which apparently quite some students experienced.

tossAfterUsing 7y ago

I disagree with Cole's comment, and i think yours is designed to suggest that my disagreement makes me an unaccountable creep. That's totally bogus, and I think you should consider the consequences that your speech is already having on the people around you.

ixtli 7y ago
It's designed to suggest that richard stallman's comments are exactly what a creep would sound like and blind defense of him without acknowledging this fact doesn't win anyone any points. Personally I love the guy and his weird contributions to the field. But how can you look at this and not think "wow thats not ok to say" no matter what we can consider he may have meant after the fact?
- odessacubbage 7y ago
  insofar as we have no evidence or inclination to believe that rms has engaged in any criminal behavior or wrongdoing or abuse of his position, why should it matter at all whether what he says is or is not 'ok'? people say stupid shit all the time, none more so than yourself.
- tossAfterUsing 7y ago
  > "wow thats not ok to say" I read what he wrote, and i DO think it's okay to say. Further more i think it's RIGHT to have said it, publicly, especially by a person of his standing. It took an incredible amount of courage and determination for rms to have the impact that he's had on the world. And now, he's been cancelled. This is a bad sign.

keiferski 7y ago

> Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society. Let's consider the logical conclusions of "society" being able to inflict consequences upon someone if they speak an unpopular opinion. If you're an individual human being, it's likely that you have at least one opinion about something that isn't inline with the overarching culture. The particular issue of Epstein or Stallman or whomever is irrelevant; while you may agree with the mob in this case, next week or next month you might not. Under your proposition, that leaves you with three options: 1. Keep your opinion to yourself and refrain from telling anyone for fear of reprisal. In other words, self-censorship. 2. Changing your opinion to match society's, out of fear of being ostracized. 3. Expressing your opinion and then having your personal or professional life ruined, or at the very least, affected to the point where you suffer financially, mentally, emotionally, or socially. Which of those three options sounds beneficial to you?

ixtli 7y ago
You're describing life in every single society that has ever existed. Do you really believe that any of these things don't happen today or that there's been a place where they didn't happen? Further, all of your "options" sound amazing if what the person is doing is calling human trafficking victims "willing." It turns out that there is a difference between good and bad things. AND it's actually possible to determine which is which! This notion that a social technology such as public opinion can be used in a negative way is not some sort of revelation. Weapons only have the morality of those that deploy them. Just as we must decry immoral use we must also celebrate moral use, otherwise we'll be living in a society where people can claim that victims of sexual violence were "willing."
- keiferski 7y ago
  I'm purely arguing against the idea of there being serious consequences for merely expressing an unpopular opinion.
  - ixtli 7y ago
    And what im saying is that 1) there are material consequences for "expressing an unpopular opinion." some of which aren't up to the person expressing them. 2) those determining the consequences, such as the organizations that let RMS go, are and should be allowed the freedom to self-govern in this way. they are well within their right to refuse to be associated with people who say these things.

spatular 7y ago

Um, I'm actually worried that I or other person will be punished for something that they didn't do. In the third world country I live in you'd have to accuse someone and then bribe the judge. Turns out that in US one don't even have to bribe anyone, mob will lynch them. You just need to accuse them of right things; e.g. stealing and homicide won't do. Is that the progress that humanity has made?

loeg 7y ago
You (and to be fair, others) are using "lynch" grossly inappropriately here.
- spatular 7y ago
  Let's see: - judged by angry mob -- yes, - no ability to defend oneself -- yes, - killed -- no (though seeing polarization and level of anger here it's possible that he'll be eventually physically assulted), - person demolished, life ruined -- yes (Stallman got removed from the org he created, got fired from his work. Another poster here written that his friend got accused, defended in court with hard evidence, life is still ruined). Comparison with lynching seems fair to me. All of this got me thinking about creating, you know, accepting tech community where everyone is free to express their own opinions. I'm personally fine with my code being called shit and me being called dumbass for a good measure, just tell me what you really think and we'll sort things out faster instead sugar-coating stuff to not hurt my ego.
  - loeg 7y ago
    Lynching has a specific context in the United States; it has the history and connotation of racist terrorism. No one dislikes Stallman on the basis of the color of his skin, and no one is murdering him. The use is a grossly inappropriate metaphor that diminishes the real meaning of the word.
    - spatular 7y ago
      Well racism connotations permeat everything in US, it's overheated/taboo topic there. Not so much in the rest of the world, see two top dictionary definitions from google: To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry. (Law) (tr) (of a mob) to punish (a person) for some supposed offence by hanging without a trial. Nothing about racism here. The only thing that doesn't apply to Stallman is that he has not been hanged. That's quite important one. Though words are sometimes used not in their literary meaning (like "I'm killing it" -- well hopefully not). BTW from what I've gathered this entire thing happened because Stallman was pedantic and has written something along "let's be precise with words, I think what happened was not rape, but statuatory rape because of such and such".