3 ms·

He's kind of a nutcase. He's a gun rights advocate, to the point where immediately after 9/11 (within a day or two?) he argued that the solution should be for e

He's kind of a nutcase. He's a gun rights advocate, to the point where immediately after 9/11 (within a day or two?) he argued that the solution should be for everyone to carry a gun always, especially on airplanes. And then he accused women in tech groups of trying to "entrap" prominent male open source leaders to falsely accuse them of rape. And then he claimed that "gays experimented with unfettered promiscuity in the 1970s and got AIDS as a consequence", and that police who treat "suspicious" black people like lethal threats are being rational, not racist. Basically, he's a racist, bigoted old man who isn't afraid to spout of conspiracy theories because he thinks the world is against him.

1000units 7y ago
At least half of these "nutcase" claims are plainly true. Thanks for the heads up, I'll be looking into this guy.
- jgwil2 7y ago
  Which half?
  - 1000units 7y ago
    Maybe someone willing to get into a politically fraught internet argument over plainly true things will jump in for me. I'm already put off by the ease and comfort with which HN seems to disparage someone's character for his ideas and beliefs, actions not even entering the picture.
    - klyrs 7y ago
      Public utterances are actions which can have consequences. If you're in favor of free speech, buckle up because criticism of public figures is protected speech. But in this case the "consequence" to esr was somebody apologizing for linking to him. Methinks the parent protests too much
      - 1000units 7y ago
        > Methinks the parent protests too much Methinks you're not as clever as you think you are, because I just explicitly affirmed at least two of four "racist, misogynistic, bigoted" statements of fact. Presumably now you'd like to have me fired from my day job and prevent anyone from reading or using anything I've touched, because that's the real effect of calling somebody a witch in our political environment. The person who linked esr was not the person to attack him; he was pre-empting your people, who inevitably showed up, because this is how you tyrants prefer we genuflect to avoid guilt by association. > Public utterances are actions which can have consequences. If you're in favor of free speech, buckle up because criticism of public figures is protected speech. This is profoundly idiotic, but I again refrain from arguing because my audience has proven itself very unthinking and vicious (the irony!). I hope you're not an American, my friend, because you don't understand what "free speech" is or why we have it, and you'd be better off taking these views back to whichever totalitarian regime trained them in you.
        klyrs 7y ago
        > I just explicitly affirmed at least two of four "racist, misogynistic, bigoted" statements of fact. Well, that's how you're characterizing your actions, okay. But just so you know. Your employer is free to retain you, or fire you, on the basis of opinions that you express in public or private. Wicked tyranny, that freedom of association. > Presumably now you'd like to... Well, that's certainly a chain of assumptions you've made. Why would you, say, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" when you're out in public? Oh right, that's a quote from HN guidelines. In any case, you're not changing minds by acting this way. > because this is how you tyrants prefer we genuflect to avoid guilt by association. Oh, no, the tyranny of public criticism! Hey did you know something? You're free to disagree with me. And criticize me. In public! And others are free to agree with me, or you, or even both of us, even if that makes zero sense! > This is profoundly idiotic, but I again refrain from arguing because my audience has proven itself very unthinking and vicious A personal attack, how droll. > I hope you're not an American, I am! And as an American I've got the freedom of association -- that means that I'm not legally obligated to verbally support or denounce anybody; nor is it unlawful for me to verbally support or denounce anybody! Funny thing about freedoms; we've all got 'em and it doesn't mean we need to agree on a damned thing. > because you don't understand what "free speech" is or why we have it, Well you're wrong there, but IANAL so here's first amendment attorney, Ken White. >> Public utterances are actions which can have consequences https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ >> buckle up because criticism of public figures is protected speech. https://www.popehat.com/2012/07/31/the-right-not-to-be-criticized-john-rocker-edition/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/07/31/the-right-not-to-be-criti... > my friend That's taking things too far. No thank you.

1000units 7y ago

At least half of these "nutcase" claims are plainly true. Thanks for the heads up, I'll be looking into this guy.

jgwil2 7y ago
Which half?
- 1000units 7y ago
  Maybe someone willing to get into a politically fraught internet argument over plainly true things will jump in for me. I'm already put off by the ease and comfort with which HN seems to disparage someone's character for his ideas and beliefs, actions not even entering the picture.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Public utterances are actions which can have consequences. If you're in favor of free speech, buckle up because criticism of public figures is protected speech. But in this case the "consequence" to esr was somebody apologizing for linking to him. Methinks the parent protests too much
    - 1000units 7y ago
      > Methinks the parent protests too much Methinks you're not as clever as you think you are, because I just explicitly affirmed at least two of four "racist, misogynistic, bigoted" statements of fact. Presumably now you'd like to have me fired from my day job and prevent anyone from reading or using anything I've touched, because that's the real effect of calling somebody a witch in our political environment. The person who linked esr was not the person to attack him; he was pre-empting your people, who inevitably showed up, because this is how you tyrants prefer we genuflect to avoid guilt by association. > Public utterances are actions which can have consequences. If you're in favor of free speech, buckle up because criticism of public figures is protected speech. This is profoundly idiotic, but I again refrain from arguing because my audience has proven itself very unthinking and vicious (the irony!). I hope you're not an American, my friend, because you don't understand what "free speech" is or why we have it, and you'd be better off taking these views back to whichever totalitarian regime trained them in you.
      - klyrs 7y ago
        > I just explicitly affirmed at least two of four "racist, misogynistic, bigoted" statements of fact. Well, that's how you're characterizing your actions, okay. But just so you know. Your employer is free to retain you, or fire you, on the basis of opinions that you express in public or private. Wicked tyranny, that freedom of association. > Presumably now you'd like to... Well, that's certainly a chain of assumptions you've made. Why would you, say, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" when you're out in public? Oh right, that's a quote from HN guidelines. In any case, you're not changing minds by acting this way. > because this is how you tyrants prefer we genuflect to avoid guilt by association. Oh, no, the tyranny of public criticism! Hey did you know something? You're free to disagree with me. And criticize me. In public! And others are free to agree with me, or you, or even both of us, even if that makes zero sense! > This is profoundly idiotic, but I again refrain from arguing because my audience has proven itself very unthinking and vicious A personal attack, how droll. > I hope you're not an American, I am! And as an American I've got the freedom of association -- that means that I'm not legally obligated to verbally support or denounce anybody; nor is it unlawful for me to verbally support or denounce anybody! Funny thing about freedoms; we've all got 'em and it doesn't mean we need to agree on a damned thing. > because you don't understand what "free speech" is or why we have it, Well you're wrong there, but IANAL so here's first amendment attorney, Ken White. >> Public utterances are actions which can have consequences https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ >> buckle up because criticism of public figures is protected speech. https://www.popehat.com/2012/07/31/the-right-not-to-be-criticized-john-rocker-edition/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/07/31/the-right-not-to-be-criti... > my friend That's taking things too far. No thank you.