5 ms·

I've stopped reading at > He has mental issues ... I don't know if it's true and already public, but how can you write that publicy about someone, you must be

I've stopped reading at > He has mental issues ... I don't know if it's true and already public, but how can you write that publicy about someone, you must be a profesional to diagnose someone and still that's very personal information. Even more, he's acusing Stallman of being "poorly socialized because nobody taught him manner", so revealing somone mental issues publicy must make him very well socliazied and good manerered.

pflenker 7y ago
While I agree with you on that, I encourage you to read on. The author does make some interesting points later in the text which are not related to that statement.
- alfonsodev 7y ago
  well thanks, I'll give it a try later, perhaps my response was a subtle Ad Hominem to a very harsh Ad Hominem, In general I think we need to get pass falacies and have a real conversation.
- jen_h 7y ago
  I found this a worthwhile argument: "The FSF should have nurtured and grown new leaders a long time ago, leaders who looked into the future, understand cloud and mobile computing and their threats to a free society. ... I never heard anyone at the FSF ask what it means for a digital society that Facebook has been legally using free software to develop algorithms that modify human behavior. Quite the opposite, the problem was javascript in the browser for apps like Gmail." I wish the author had taken his own titular advice, though...the post would be better for it.
giancarlostoro 7y ago
That's a bit harsh. I'm ok with people saying he's eccentric. But outright saying he has mental issues, that's quite the accusation.
- mdgrech23 7y ago
  Agreed, that was a total jerk comment.
- kome 7y ago
  having mental issues is not an accusation tho... why would it be? let's not reiterate the stigma. we should be more aware and tolerant of mental issues (or neurodiversity, if you prefer the sjw world).
  - alfonsodev 7y ago
    how I see it, it's not a stigma, but also we shouldn't trivialise it randomnly diagnosing people, the risk of trivialising is that when someone has real issues we won't take them as seriously because anyways we all have "mental issues" *or so says people that disagree with you)
- smsm42 7y ago
  It's not an accusation, since having mental issues is not a crime. But using somebody's supposed health issues as a bludgeon in political confrontation is despicable. And even if we knew for a fact (which we most definitely don't) that Stallman is affected by some health issues, how would that justify treating him unfairly and dismissing all his achievements and all his work for Free Software cause?
zxexz 7y ago
Yeah, nobody has the right to diagnose anybody with "having mental issues", and if the author knows more about Stallman personally, it isn't his place to bring that up here, IMO. Also, "poorly socialized because nobody taught him manner" sounds subjective and I feel has no place in a piece like this. Other than that, I think the author has mostly valid and excellent points.
yourbandsucks 7y ago
This is 2019. We want to cast out anybody different, in the name of empathy and inclusiveness.
ReptileMan 7y ago
Actually it is the other way around - anyone can state whatever they like about other people mental state (and suffer the consequences if the statements are defamatory), only the US practicing members of American Psychiatric Association are forbidden by their association to diagnose people that are not their patients - the so called Goldwater Rule. I like Stallman, and even if he is mad as a hatter and offends the whole progressive world - he is still right about the only thing about him that interests me - his opinion and work on software freedom and privacy.
gnode 7y ago
That inference comes from a long pattern of speech and behaviour made in public. Far from being private or personal information, it's an elephant in the room. It's necessary to be able to critique leaders. Discussing a person's mind with regard to their fitness for leadership is not the same as making a personal attack at somebody's mental health.
- daveslash 7y ago
  >>It's necessary to be able to critique leaders. There's one particular leader who comes to mind... I know many people would have no problem publicly asserting that this leader clearly has some sort of mental/cognitive/emotional problems.
  - gnode 7y ago
    It's ironic that bad faith accusations of insanity against people with different opinions are generally more tolerated than good faith assertions of mental issues impeding those who we are sympathetic to.
    - daveslash 7y ago
      Yes, ironic indeed. That said, I'll admit that the author might have word-smithed the post a little bit. For example, unless it's publicly known that he has Aspergers, the author probably should have avoided being so specific. Instead of saying that he has mental issues, they could have said "years of public behavior would indicate that he very well may have mental issues". Maybe that would have struck many readers as more "good-faith" criticism.
ben509 7y ago
He's responding to material accusations; "they claim that his social behavior has prevented more people from joining." And if you're evaluating a spokesman, which is a role Stallman has to fill, being unusually awkward is a strong disqualifier. So he's not bringing this up from nowhere. > I don't know if it's true and already public, but how can you write that publicy about someone, you must be a profesional to diagnose someone and still that's very personal information. I don't like charges of mental problems. I think when people go for a cheap shot it's usually one of the holy trinity of stupid, crazy or mean. And people like to dress a cheap shot up with some Latin or Greek; worse still is when a pro does exactly what you're complaining about. In this case, though, he's sticking to what I can condone. I've already pointed out how it's relevant, and that he's bringing it up to respond to charges others have already made. The other factor is he's not trying to pretend he has any medical qualification or that they even matter: > He is socially inept, whether incapable because of his Asperger brain or poorly socialized because nobody taught him manners is a moot point. It's okay to observe someone is socially inept as that's something most adults can intuit. And he also tries to humanize Stallman: > He has mental issues and nobody cared enough about them to help him. That's indicting people around Stallman more than Stallman himself. Because of that, I think this is acceptable discourse.
- alfonsodev 7y ago
  You have all valid points, I admit the second part of my comment is an ad hominem fallacy In reply to ad hominem fallacy, so I’m not proud of it. I’d stick with the first part, the illness mention I think it’s beyond those other legit appreciations you pointed out, which you also dislike. I take note of the holy trinity of stupid concept :)
  - krapp 7y ago
    And let's be fair, Stallman's own supporters have often defended his behavior with their own armchair diagnoses of autism or neuro-atypicality[0,1]. So the horse has kind of fled the barn on this being a valid topic of discussion. [0]https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=stallman%20autist&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [1]https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=stallman%20neurotypical&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
As an autistic guy with issues similar to Stallman's, I don't like the idea that only professionals are allowed to observe and comment on mental issues. There's nothing wrong with pointing out pervasive behavior patterns. You should do so responsibly and without being a jerk about it; using "mental issues" as shorthand for "I don't like you so you must be crazy" is bullshit. But I don't think that's what's happening here. The author mentions it mostly to say that it doesn't matter.
smsm42 7y ago
I had serious temptation to stop reading after "cacophonous conversations" - if I already know everything the author is going to say, should I waste time continuing? But I did, and I regretted it.

pflenker 7y ago

While I agree with you on that, I encourage you to read on. The author does make some interesting points later in the text which are not related to that statement.

alfonsodev 7y ago
well thanks, I'll give it a try later, perhaps my response was a subtle Ad Hominem to a very harsh Ad Hominem, In general I think we need to get pass falacies and have a real conversation.
jen_h 7y ago
I found this a worthwhile argument: "The FSF should have nurtured and grown new leaders a long time ago, leaders who looked into the future, understand cloud and mobile computing and their threats to a free society. ... I never heard anyone at the FSF ask what it means for a digital society that Facebook has been legally using free software to develop algorithms that modify human behavior. Quite the opposite, the problem was javascript in the browser for apps like Gmail." I wish the author had taken his own titular advice, though...the post would be better for it.

giancarlostoro 7y ago

That's a bit harsh. I'm ok with people saying he's eccentric. But outright saying he has mental issues, that's quite the accusation.

mdgrech23 7y ago
Agreed, that was a total jerk comment.
kome 7y ago
having mental issues is not an accusation tho... why would it be? let's not reiterate the stigma. we should be more aware and tolerant of mental issues (or neurodiversity, if you prefer the sjw world).
- alfonsodev 7y ago
  how I see it, it's not a stigma, but also we shouldn't trivialise it randomnly diagnosing people, the risk of trivialising is that when someone has real issues we won't take them as seriously because anyways we all have "mental issues" *or so says people that disagree with you)
smsm42 7y ago
It's not an accusation, since having mental issues is not a crime. But using somebody's supposed health issues as a bludgeon in political confrontation is despicable. And even if we knew for a fact (which we most definitely don't) that Stallman is affected by some health issues, how would that justify treating him unfairly and dismissing all his achievements and all his work for Free Software cause?

zxexz 7y ago

Yeah, nobody has the right to diagnose anybody with "having mental issues", and if the author knows more about Stallman personally, it isn't his place to bring that up here, IMO. Also, "poorly socialized because nobody taught him manner" sounds subjective and I feel has no place in a piece like this. Other than that, I think the author has mostly valid and excellent points.

yourbandsucks 7y ago

This is 2019. We want to cast out anybody different, in the name of empathy and inclusiveness.

ReptileMan 7y ago

Actually it is the other way around - anyone can state whatever they like about other people mental state (and suffer the consequences if the statements are defamatory), only the US practicing members of American Psychiatric Association are forbidden by their association to diagnose people that are not their patients - the so called Goldwater Rule. I like Stallman, and even if he is mad as a hatter and offends the whole progressive world - he is still right about the only thing about him that interests me - his opinion and work on software freedom and privacy.

gnode 7y ago

That inference comes from a long pattern of speech and behaviour made in public. Far from being private or personal information, it's an elephant in the room. It's necessary to be able to critique leaders. Discussing a person's mind with regard to their fitness for leadership is not the same as making a personal attack at somebody's mental health.

daveslash 7y ago
>>It's necessary to be able to critique leaders. There's one particular leader who comes to mind... I know many people would have no problem publicly asserting that this leader clearly has some sort of mental/cognitive/emotional problems.
- gnode 7y ago
  It's ironic that bad faith accusations of insanity against people with different opinions are generally more tolerated than good faith assertions of mental issues impeding those who we are sympathetic to.
  - daveslash 7y ago
    Yes, ironic indeed. That said, I'll admit that the author might have word-smithed the post a little bit. For example, unless it's publicly known that he has Aspergers, the author probably should have avoided being so specific. Instead of saying that he has mental issues, they could have said "years of public behavior would indicate that he very well may have mental issues". Maybe that would have struck many readers as more "good-faith" criticism.

ben509 7y ago

He's responding to material accusations; "they claim that his social behavior has prevented more people from joining." And if you're evaluating a spokesman, which is a role Stallman has to fill, being unusually awkward is a strong disqualifier. So he's not bringing this up from nowhere. > I don't know if it's true and already public, but how can you write that publicy about someone, you must be a profesional to diagnose someone and still that's very personal information. I don't like charges of mental problems. I think when people go for a cheap shot it's usually one of the holy trinity of stupid, crazy or mean. And people like to dress a cheap shot up with some Latin or Greek; worse still is when a pro does exactly what you're complaining about. In this case, though, he's sticking to what I can condone. I've already pointed out how it's relevant, and that he's bringing it up to respond to charges others have already made. The other factor is he's not trying to pretend he has any medical qualification or that they even matter: > He is socially inept, whether incapable because of his Asperger brain or poorly socialized because nobody taught him manners is a moot point. It's okay to observe someone is socially inept as that's something most adults can intuit. And he also tries to humanize Stallman: > He has mental issues and nobody cared enough about them to help him. That's indicting people around Stallman more than Stallman himself. Because of that, I think this is acceptable discourse.

alfonsodev 7y ago
You have all valid points, I admit the second part of my comment is an ad hominem fallacy In reply to ad hominem fallacy, so I’m not proud of it. I’d stick with the first part, the illness mention I think it’s beyond those other legit appreciations you pointed out, which you also dislike. I take note of the holy trinity of stupid concept :)
- krapp 7y ago
  And let's be fair, Stallman's own supporters have often defended his behavior with their own armchair diagnoses of autism or neuro-atypicality[0,1]. So the horse has kind of fled the barn on this being a valid topic of discussion. [0]https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=stallman%20autist&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [1]https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=stallman%20neurotypical&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

As an autistic guy with issues similar to Stallman's, I don't like the idea that only professionals are allowed to observe and comment on mental issues. There's nothing wrong with pointing out pervasive behavior patterns. You should do so responsibly and without being a jerk about it; using "mental issues" as shorthand for "I don't like you so you must be crazy" is bullshit. But I don't think that's what's happening here. The author mentions it mostly to say that it doesn't matter.

smsm42 7y ago

I had serious temptation to stop reading after "cacophonous conversations" - if I already know everything the author is going to say, should I waste time continuing? But I did, and I regretted it.