4 ms·

>> Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him > Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: Do you know h

>> Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him > Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: Do you know him? Aren't you vilifying him? Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" of being constantly harassed by a mob every time his name is brought up.

davidw 7y ago
It's a pretty good reason for him to step down as a public figure though.
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  Maybe... but isn't this idea worth questioning? There are loads of scenarios where we simply say, as a society, your discomfort with someone doesn't matter on balance, and you must deal with it. Such is the case with all the hot-button "isms" today. Stigma's wrt. mental disorders haven't really gotten the same kind of love from the social justice movements, that other areas have.
menotyou43 7y ago
My qualm is with the term "vilified." It implies that he is being done undue harm - he's getting what he should be getting. He should not be in a leadership position.
happytoexplain 7y ago
I don't think merely believing or giving credence to the people who know him, combined with observation, means that his vilification comes not at the hands of those who know him. It only followed from it. You may look for fault in those primary sources, but why separately attack the rest of the world for their opinions on the matter? Also, for what it's worth, I think defending something somebody said by calling it an "unpopular opinion" is a really easy trope to fall into that makes your tone seem dismissive to the opposing viewpoint (the "popular" viewpoint).
diminoten 7y ago
I don't need to know someone to be repulsed by what they've said, why the hell is that now the bar?
zamalek 7y ago
We need to check ourselves on our personal heroes here. People are saying the same things about a specific American politician: "he's a good man, why are you attacking him?" If I were a philanthropist spending billions of dollars saving lives, would I get a free pass to kill a person a week? Of course not. His opinion is not unpopular. It is morally reprehensible. Yes, some countries and states allow childhood intercourse, in much the same way that slavery was tolerated in many places around the world even after it was almost universally condemned. Some minority voices are important (see: woman's suffrage, gay rights). Typically, these opinions are novel, they are new, they are revolutionary. Opinions such as the rights of pedophiles, or homosexual persecution are in contrast to hard-won battles that exist in the past. Regressive opinions are not plight, they are an appeal to return to the plight of others. He is not supporting a fringe socially progressive movement. He is supporting something that we know is wrong. Pedophilia is an atypical anomaly. It is a debilitating disability. Those people need help desperately, not a pass to continue hurting children. Edit: it also turns out that there are personal accounts of him being outwardly shitty to women. He needs a friend to course correct him, not praise or worship him.
mlevental 7y ago
>Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" why? i don't understand this. if he's entitled to his unpopular opinions why in the world isn't everyone else held to the same standard? i'm entitled to my unpopular opinion (at least on hn) that he's a socially inept idiot who shouldn't be in a public facing position. will i be spared downvotes and a slew of responses harassing me? i doubt it (it's already happened twice). this has literally always been in the court of public opinion because guess what? he's not an engineer and we're not assessing the quality of his work here - we're assessing his ability to be a public persona.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 7y ago
I don't personally know Charles Manson, but I think he is definitely deserving of vilification. Now, that doesn't mean that RMS (or anyone else) absolutely certainly deserves being vilified by people who don't know them, but the entire premise is false: knowing someone (personally, I assume is the implication?) is not a necessary condition for condemning their behavior.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  It’s funny because this is exactly the type of argument that RMS would probably make.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    I hadn't thought of that when writing it, but yeah, he probably might. No one is claiming all his arguments are bad, or that all his arguments are framed poorly, or that all his arguments ignore how they could offend or hurt people. But some of them, arguably, do.

davidw 7y ago

It's a pretty good reason for him to step down as a public figure though.

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
Maybe... but isn't this idea worth questioning? There are loads of scenarios where we simply say, as a society, your discomfort with someone doesn't matter on balance, and you must deal with it. Such is the case with all the hot-button "isms" today. Stigma's wrt. mental disorders haven't really gotten the same kind of love from the social justice movements, that other areas have.

menotyou43 7y ago

My qualm is with the term "vilified." It implies that he is being done undue harm - he's getting what he should be getting. He should not be in a leadership position.

happytoexplain 7y ago

I don't think merely believing or giving credence to the people who know him, combined with observation, means that his vilification comes not at the hands of those who know him. It only followed from it. You may look for fault in those primary sources, but why separately attack the rest of the world for their opinions on the matter? Also, for what it's worth, I think defending something somebody said by calling it an "unpopular opinion" is a really easy trope to fall into that makes your tone seem dismissive to the opposing viewpoint (the "popular" viewpoint).

diminoten 7y ago

I don't need to know someone to be repulsed by what they've said, why the hell is that now the bar?

zamalek 7y ago

We need to check ourselves on our personal heroes here. People are saying the same things about a specific American politician: "he's a good man, why are you attacking him?" If I were a philanthropist spending billions of dollars saving lives, would I get a free pass to kill a person a week? Of course not. His opinion is not unpopular. It is morally reprehensible. Yes, some countries and states allow childhood intercourse, in much the same way that slavery was tolerated in many places around the world even after it was almost universally condemned. Some minority voices are important (see: woman's suffrage, gay rights). Typically, these opinions are novel, they are new, they are revolutionary. Opinions such as the rights of pedophiles, or homosexual persecution are in contrast to hard-won battles that exist in the past. Regressive opinions are not plight, they are an appeal to return to the plight of others. He is not supporting a fringe socially progressive movement. He is supporting something that we know is wrong. Pedophilia is an atypical anomaly. It is a debilitating disability. Those people need help desperately, not a pass to continue hurting children. Edit: it also turns out that there are personal accounts of him being outwardly shitty to women. He needs a friend to course correct him, not praise or worship him.

mlevental 7y ago

>Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" why? i don't understand this. if he's entitled to his unpopular opinions why in the world isn't everyone else held to the same standard? i'm entitled to my unpopular opinion (at least on hn) that he's a socially inept idiot who shouldn't be in a public facing position. will i be spared downvotes and a slew of responses harassing me? i doubt it (it's already happened twice). this has literally always been in the court of public opinion because guess what? he's not an engineer and we're not assessing the quality of his work here - we're assessing his ability to be a public persona.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 7y ago

I don't personally know Charles Manson, but I think he is definitely deserving of vilification. Now, that doesn't mean that RMS (or anyone else) absolutely certainly deserves being vilified by people who don't know them, but the entire premise is false: knowing someone (personally, I assume is the implication?) is not a necessary condition for condemning their behavior.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
It’s funny because this is exactly the type of argument that RMS would probably make.
- kelnos 7y ago
  I hadn't thought of that when writing it, but yeah, he probably might. No one is claiming all his arguments are bad, or that all his arguments are framed poorly, or that all his arguments ignore how they could offend or hurt people. But some of them, arguably, do.