5 ms·

If you can’t see the problem with making such arguments, you don’t belong in a leadership position, period.

by cududa 7y ago

devoply 7y ago
Leadership does not mean stay woke or we'll cancel you. Stallman should not have stepped down.
- namesbc 7y ago
  How about don't defend child rape or we'll remove you from any position of power over another human?
  - prongletown 7y ago
    People have been harping on "staying woke" and "cancel culture" as a way of criticizing changing values about sexual abuse and positions of power. When you dig into every case where you see this, there's almost always reasonable context.
  - craigsmansion 7y ago
    How about not alleging dead people are violent child rapists without any evidence, and then, when being called out on your false allegations, create a media storm of manufactured outrage to punish the person who called you out on them?
  - viklove 7y ago
    I don't think anyone is defending child rape, but rather questioning what even constitutes "child rape." There's obviously a difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old, and using one term (child) to describe both cases seems strange.
    - VikingCoder 7y ago
      Really? You don't think anyone is defending sex with minors? "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
- prongletown 7y ago
  This is not an issue of "staying woke". Arguing that statutory rape is "absurd" is not "staying woke". Stallman said some things that were deeply troubling to a lot of people, myself included. That aside... His judgement in making these statements, in a public way, was extremely poor. As a representative of FSF and MIT, he stepped far out of the boundary of what's considered reasonable. Leadership means knowing how to lead, and that includes not demoralizing your organization with controversy. He didn't step down. He was fired with the option of keeping his dignity.
  - devoply 7y ago
    It's in fact morally absurd to have it be statutory rape in one jurisdiction and not in another, depending on age. That's a fact, if you don't like it you can kindly go bury you head in the woke sand.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - VikingCoder 7y ago
      It's "morally absurd" for different jurisdictions to self-govern? Or for them to disagree with each other? What universal age do you think everyone in all jurisdictions should be forced to accept, and how do you intend to enforce your moral superiority on them?
      - devoply 7y ago
        Taken logically some jurisdictions have legislation and legislators that allows for and perhaps it could be argued support rape according to other jurisdictions. Given this is the case how does such a rape supporting jurisdiction have any legal authority whatsoever to for instance compel another jurisdiction to turn over people guilty of other crimes say murder? And vice versa, according to the rape supporting jurisdiction how can one which supports imprisoning innocent people for things which are not criminal have any legal relationship to the other?
taylodl 7y ago
Is someone who follows the herd or is afraid to state an unpopular opinion on a contentious topic your idea of a leader? I don't think so, in fact I think they're the exact opposite. This world needs people who are willing to go to the mat for their contentious ideas, regardless of how misguided they may appear to be so long as there's evidence of reasoning. Otherwise how do we progress? A lot of today's mainstream thought was once contentious, even illegal. I really don't understand this attitude at all.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  Like it or not, "political capital" is a real thing. It can be spent and depleted, leaving you no more to use on the things you care about. The leader of an organization advocating for a particular cause (free software, in this case) should not go wasting political capital on rants about how "there's no evidence pedophilia harms children". Even if you completely ignore the problematic morality of such statements (which, to be clear, you absolutely should not do), they obviously undermined the mission of the FSF and Stallman should leave on that basis alone.
  - taylodl 7y ago
    Lost in this discussion is RMS was defending Marvin Minsky, not Jeffrey Epstein. That was unequivocally clear in RMS' public statements. Why step into the fray and defend Marvin Minsky? For starters Minsky is dead and as such is unable to defend himself. Is it still not considered poor form to attack dead people? Especially prominent, accomplished dead persons such as Marvin Minsky? Who also happens to have been a lifelong friend and mentor of RMS, someone whom RMS looked up to? The way I see it RMS was correct to spend his political capital defending his late friend Marvin Minsky. If only everybody had a friend like that.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      I never lost that in the discussion. We speak ill of dead people all the time. We've been speaking ill of the dead for a long time. "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones." Adam Lanza was the Sandy Hook murderer. He can't speak for himself. Is that not an attack on his moral character? Omitting the bad things someone did, to only look at the good, whitewashes history. RMS was absolutely correct to spend as much political capital as he wants to defend Minsky. In this case though, that political capital was also being used to keep his position at MIT and at the FSF. Once spent, he no longer had the support.

If you can’t see the problem with making such arguments, you don’t belong in a leadership position, period.

by cududa 7y ago

If you can’t see the problem with making such arguments, you don’t belong in a leadership position, period.

devoply 7y ago

Leadership does not mean stay woke or we'll cancel you. Stallman should not have stepped down.

namesbc 7y ago
How about don't defend child rape or we'll remove you from any position of power over another human?
- prongletown 7y ago
  People have been harping on "staying woke" and "cancel culture" as a way of criticizing changing values about sexual abuse and positions of power. When you dig into every case where you see this, there's almost always reasonable context.
- craigsmansion 7y ago
  How about not alleging dead people are violent child rapists without any evidence, and then, when being called out on your false allegations, create a media storm of manufactured outrage to punish the person who called you out on them?
- viklove 7y ago
  I don't think anyone is defending child rape, but rather questioning what even constitutes "child rape." There's obviously a difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old, and using one term (child) to describe both cases seems strange.
  - VikingCoder 7y ago
    Really? You don't think anyone is defending sex with minors? "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
prongletown 7y ago
This is not an issue of "staying woke". Arguing that statutory rape is "absurd" is not "staying woke". Stallman said some things that were deeply troubling to a lot of people, myself included. That aside... His judgement in making these statements, in a public way, was extremely poor. As a representative of FSF and MIT, he stepped far out of the boundary of what's considered reasonable. Leadership means knowing how to lead, and that includes not demoralizing your organization with controversy. He didn't step down. He was fired with the option of keeping his dignity.
- devoply 7y ago
  It's in fact morally absurd to have it be statutory rape in one jurisdiction and not in another, depending on age. That's a fact, if you don't like it you can kindly go bury you head in the woke sand.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - VikingCoder 7y ago
    It's "morally absurd" for different jurisdictions to self-govern? Or for them to disagree with each other? What universal age do you think everyone in all jurisdictions should be forced to accept, and how do you intend to enforce your moral superiority on them?
    - devoply 7y ago
      Taken logically some jurisdictions have legislation and legislators that allows for and perhaps it could be argued support rape according to other jurisdictions. Given this is the case how does such a rape supporting jurisdiction have any legal authority whatsoever to for instance compel another jurisdiction to turn over people guilty of other crimes say murder? And vice versa, according to the rape supporting jurisdiction how can one which supports imprisoning innocent people for things which are not criminal have any legal relationship to the other?

taylodl 7y ago

Is someone who follows the herd or is afraid to state an unpopular opinion on a contentious topic your idea of a leader? I don't think so, in fact I think they're the exact opposite. This world needs people who are willing to go to the mat for their contentious ideas, regardless of how misguided they may appear to be so long as there's evidence of reasoning. Otherwise how do we progress? A lot of today's mainstream thought was once contentious, even illegal. I really don't understand this attitude at all.

Analemma_ 7y ago
Like it or not, "political capital" is a real thing. It can be spent and depleted, leaving you no more to use on the things you care about. The leader of an organization advocating for a particular cause (free software, in this case) should not go wasting political capital on rants about how "there's no evidence pedophilia harms children". Even if you completely ignore the problematic morality of such statements (which, to be clear, you absolutely should not do), they obviously undermined the mission of the FSF and Stallman should leave on that basis alone.
- taylodl 7y ago
  Lost in this discussion is RMS was defending Marvin Minsky, not Jeffrey Epstein. That was unequivocally clear in RMS' public statements. Why step into the fray and defend Marvin Minsky? For starters Minsky is dead and as such is unable to defend himself. Is it still not considered poor form to attack dead people? Especially prominent, accomplished dead persons such as Marvin Minsky? Who also happens to have been a lifelong friend and mentor of RMS, someone whom RMS looked up to? The way I see it RMS was correct to spend his political capital defending his late friend Marvin Minsky. If only everybody had a friend like that.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    I never lost that in the discussion. We speak ill of dead people all the time. We've been speaking ill of the dead for a long time. "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones." Adam Lanza was the Sandy Hook murderer. He can't speak for himself. Is that not an attack on his moral character? Omitting the bad things someone did, to only look at the good, whitewashes history. RMS was absolutely correct to spend as much political capital as he wants to defend Minsky. In this case though, that political capital was also being used to keep his position at MIT and at the FSF. Once spent, he no longer had the support.