4 ms·

> Instead of considering the pain of a young person treated in such a manner [...] I find it really odd this myoptic view: he is defending a coworker, which is

> Instead of considering the pain of a young person treated in such a manner [...] I find it really odd this myoptic view: he is defending a coworker, which is not alive anymore to defend himself. He did not say the victim is lying, he is talking about how Minsky possibly didn't do anything wrong himself. Is everyone aware there was a protest against the ones involved at MIT (including Minsky)? How would you feel if someone protested against you if you were innocent? > [...] opining that 14-year-old girls have free will [..] Not in the US, but that does not apply to a good number of countries is Western Europe, South America, etc. Now, I do not agree with everything Stallman said, but he has the right to be wrong. Why can't he be wrong? Is he not entitled to an opinion which does not conform to the majority? Silencing people we don't agree with is a slippery slope, specially when appealing to some absolute morality standard. I see this happening too much lately, including here.

LiquidSky 7y ago
>Now, I do not agree with everything Stallman said, but he has the right to be wrong. Why can't he be wrong? Is he not entitled to an opinion which does not conform to the majority? You're really asking two questions here. Is he entitled to his opinions? Sure. Is he entitled to maintain his position while holding those opinions? Different question. Or, to put it another way, is someone entitled to having any opinion without facing any consequences? >Silencing people we don't agree with is a slippery slope, specially when appealing to some absolute morality standard. The "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, but more importantly neither you nor anyone else expressing similar views actually believes what you wrote. If Stallman had written, say, that he believes Jews are subhuman vermin and need to be exterminated, there would be zero question he should be fired and neither you nor anyone else who isn't an actual Nazi would be leaping to defend his right to express that opinion.
- ameixaseca 7y ago
  There is a fundamental difference in your example in the fact that it calls for action/violence. If he had said, for instance, that every child needs to be molested, that would be more in line with your example. And that would no longer be acceptable. Outright racism and similar views are indeed less tolerated nowadays, but this is a whole discussion by itself. I'll just add that, from my POV, they cross the line from the "opinion realm", which together with a number of other arguments justifies non-tolerance of these views.

LiquidSky 7y ago

>Now, I do not agree with everything Stallman said, but he has the right to be wrong. Why can't he be wrong? Is he not entitled to an opinion which does not conform to the majority? You're really asking two questions here. Is he entitled to his opinions? Sure. Is he entitled to maintain his position while holding those opinions? Different question. Or, to put it another way, is someone entitled to having any opinion without facing any consequences? >Silencing people we don't agree with is a slippery slope, specially when appealing to some absolute morality standard. The "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, but more importantly neither you nor anyone else expressing similar views actually believes what you wrote. If Stallman had written, say, that he believes Jews are subhuman vermin and need to be exterminated, there would be zero question he should be fired and neither you nor anyone else who isn't an actual Nazi would be leaping to defend his right to express that opinion.

ameixaseca 7y ago
There is a fundamental difference in your example in the fact that it calls for action/violence. If he had said, for instance, that every child needs to be molested, that would be more in line with your example. And that would no longer be acceptable. Outright racism and similar views are indeed less tolerated nowadays, but this is a whole discussion by itself. I'll just add that, from my POV, they cross the line from the "opinion realm", which together with a number of other arguments justifies non-tolerance of these views.