5 ms·

This rather misses the point. The issue is not RMS's beliefs as such. It's how he chooses to communicate them. There's no doubt that there are many people in

This rather misses the point. The issue is not RMS's beliefs as such. It's how he chooses to communicate them. There's no doubt that there are many people in positions of power with beliefs that many would find reprehensible. But most of them have the sense not to make those beliefs public. Of course one can make the argument that RMS can't help it, it's just his personality/ disability (as Bruce Perens recently argued), but that infantilizes RMS and implies he's simply incapable of learning from his mistakes. But he is capable of such learning, as his recent presumably coerced "apology" shows. He needs more of that to develop into a mature adult person.

jsmith99 6y ago
So your solution to diversity of beliefs is don't ask, don't tell?
- antonvs 6y ago
  It's not "my solution." It's an observation about what actually happens in the world, in practice. One important aspect of what I described is that it requires an awareness of when one's beliefs are out of line with widely accepted positions. That awareness helps avoid pointless and unnecessary conflict, and may also cause one to reconsider the specifics of one's beliefs. Lacking that awareness is likely to lead to trouble. When someone finds themselves defending child predators, it suggest that they are severely lacking in that kind of self-awareness. Social shaming in that situation is not unreasonable, and may help the person improve their understanding of how their beliefs fit into the world.
  - happysadpanda2 6y ago
    Was Minsky ever proven to have had sex with a minor? Or what child predator do you believe rms to be defending?
    - creamytaco 6y ago
      Minsky's own wife testified that she was with him during the visit to Epstein's island and nothing of the sort happened. Of course, facts mean nothing to the mob. You see it here in this very thread (comments marking RMS as a "serial harasser" when that's pure fiction at best and malicious slander at worst). The ideology and mental models behind cancel culture are so poisonous and hostile to open exchange of ideas that they need to be rooted out and vehemently exposed wherever encountered.
      - dang 6y ago
        Your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that—regardless of what ideology they're battling for or against—because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    All of what you've said could apply to every controversial position to ever exist. These include racial equality, women's rights, homosexuality, democracy, wearing shoes inside the house, etc. It is both patronizing and factually incorrect to claim that speaking one's mind is to be equated with lack of awareness and pointless conflict. Who are you or anyone else to determine what's pointless? Conflict can arise from any reason at all even the most irrational. It isn't anyone's obligation to be the broker or bearer of a false dogma for society's sake. There's no reason to reconsider a view until proof to the contrary is presented by the claimant. Any social stigma based on such a premise is only a reflection of its insular beliefs - nay, delusions - held onto without examination or scrutiny. Shaming is the only the weapon left to people whose view of themselves and the world around them depends on the sanctity of an ideological house of cards. Reasonable people don't need hokum like shaming to defeat an argument. It's only necessary for the unreasonable. A society dependent on shaming is itself lacking in awareness. It can't hope to understand world beyond itself. Equating beliefs that please merely general society and with beliefs that fit into the world is a false premise. The world is a much bigger and unconventional place than most will accept.
jdmoreira 6y ago
Whatever his beliefs that is no reason to cancel, shame or ostracize someone. He is harmless and never incited violence or hate. People nowadays have a really low threshold for what is acceptable, I think that says more about them then RMS or anyone else that has been outed and shamed. Here comes the thought police!
- neolog 6y ago
  Those people have always existed. They're just online now.
- antonvs 6y ago
  > Whatever his beliefs that is no reason to cancel Please re-read the second sentence of my comment: > The issue is not RMS's beliefs as such. It's how he chooses to communicate them.
  - jdmoreira 6y ago
    Is it really? I read the email chain, it was totally reasonable. He made good points regarding the mental image of assault. I for one don’t want people to discuss the meaning of rape but he had a perspective that was shared in a civil manner. Someone else of course jumped immediately to "when this leaks it will reflect poorly on us, ...". Yeah, maybe if you are more interested in looking good than having an intellectually honest conversation you shouldn’t be allowed in academia.
    - antonvs 6y ago
      His position was not reasonable. I'm not taking about civility.
      - jdmoreira 6y ago
        according to you. maybe you should be more open to other perspectives.
      - pwdisswordfish8 6y ago
neolog 6y ago
Isn't it good to have a prominent person who can say the things others are too vulnerable to say?
- antonvs 6y ago
  Such as that exploitation of underage girls by much older adults is ok? If RMS had something important to say here, the overall response would be different. But he doesn't. He's just an immature creep who's been coddled too much his whole life.
  - jdmoreira 6y ago
    He never said that. I read the email chain and he never even hinted at that.
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  Clearly in this case it depends on what was said. I can't believe people are standing up to say RMS deserves a blank check to speak for the FSF after his past comments.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Grustaf 6y ago
So basically he is allowed to hold heretical beliefs, as long as he hides them? I'm not sure that's a great improvement over Soviet times. EDIT: I've always disliked him immensely as a matter of personal preference, but for all I care he should be able to be an outspoken communist nazi as long as he makes sensible decisions in his work capacity.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  My opinion is the opposite of yours - I like RMS immensely, but believe he's no longer fit to represent free software. The article that changed my mind [1] stated that, in short, making public statements on controversial topics unrelated to free software is harmful to the FSF's mission, regardless of how correct those statements may be. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    It seems that this statement by Stallman is what upsets him the most: "Sexual assault: this term is so broad that using it is misleading. The term includes rape, groping, sexual harassment, and other acts. These acts are not merely different in degree. They are different in kind. Rape is a grave crime. Being groped is unpleasant but not as grave as robbery. Sexual harassment is a not an action at all, but rather a pattern of actions that constitutes economic unfairness. How can it make sense to group these behaviors things together? It never makes sense. News articles, studies, and laws should avoid that term." That doesn't seem very controversial or upsetting, and even when he does say things I think are upsetting, how is that related to him promoting free software? As long as he obeys the laws I don't care if he would actually like to change them. The greater questions is: Why exactly do we need everyone to agree with our own morals? Isn't that the exact opposite of democracy? Especially in the US, which is a melting pot of people from various cultures, isn't the whole point that people should be able to have whatever morals they want, but everyone needs to obey the laws, and then every few years people vote on what the rules should be?
    - MikeUt 6y ago

jsmith99 6y ago

So your solution to diversity of beliefs is don't ask, don't tell?

antonvs 6y ago
It's not "my solution." It's an observation about what actually happens in the world, in practice. One important aspect of what I described is that it requires an awareness of when one's beliefs are out of line with widely accepted positions. That awareness helps avoid pointless and unnecessary conflict, and may also cause one to reconsider the specifics of one's beliefs. Lacking that awareness is likely to lead to trouble. When someone finds themselves defending child predators, it suggest that they are severely lacking in that kind of self-awareness. Social shaming in that situation is not unreasonable, and may help the person improve their understanding of how their beliefs fit into the world.
- happysadpanda2 6y ago
  Was Minsky ever proven to have had sex with a minor? Or what child predator do you believe rms to be defending?
  - creamytaco 6y ago
    Minsky's own wife testified that she was with him during the visit to Epstein's island and nothing of the sort happened. Of course, facts mean nothing to the mob. You see it here in this very thread (comments marking RMS as a "serial harasser" when that's pure fiction at best and malicious slander at worst). The ideology and mental models behind cancel culture are so poisonous and hostile to open exchange of ideas that they need to be rooted out and vehemently exposed wherever encountered.
    - dang 6y ago
      Your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that—regardless of what ideology they're battling for or against—because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  All of what you've said could apply to every controversial position to ever exist. These include racial equality, women's rights, homosexuality, democracy, wearing shoes inside the house, etc. It is both patronizing and factually incorrect to claim that speaking one's mind is to be equated with lack of awareness and pointless conflict. Who are you or anyone else to determine what's pointless? Conflict can arise from any reason at all even the most irrational. It isn't anyone's obligation to be the broker or bearer of a false dogma for society's sake. There's no reason to reconsider a view until proof to the contrary is presented by the claimant. Any social stigma based on such a premise is only a reflection of its insular beliefs - nay, delusions - held onto without examination or scrutiny. Shaming is the only the weapon left to people whose view of themselves and the world around them depends on the sanctity of an ideological house of cards. Reasonable people don't need hokum like shaming to defeat an argument. It's only necessary for the unreasonable. A society dependent on shaming is itself lacking in awareness. It can't hope to understand world beyond itself. Equating beliefs that please merely general society and with beliefs that fit into the world is a false premise. The world is a much bigger and unconventional place than most will accept.

jdmoreira 6y ago

Whatever his beliefs that is no reason to cancel, shame or ostracize someone. He is harmless and never incited violence or hate. People nowadays have a really low threshold for what is acceptable, I think that says more about them then RMS or anyone else that has been outed and shamed. Here comes the thought police!

neolog 6y ago
Those people have always existed. They're just online now.
antonvs 6y ago
> Whatever his beliefs that is no reason to cancel Please re-read the second sentence of my comment: > The issue is not RMS's beliefs as such. It's how he chooses to communicate them.
- jdmoreira 6y ago
  Is it really? I read the email chain, it was totally reasonable. He made good points regarding the mental image of assault. I for one don’t want people to discuss the meaning of rape but he had a perspective that was shared in a civil manner. Someone else of course jumped immediately to "when this leaks it will reflect poorly on us, ...". Yeah, maybe if you are more interested in looking good than having an intellectually honest conversation you shouldn’t be allowed in academia.
  - antonvs 6y ago
    His position was not reasonable. I'm not taking about civility.
    - jdmoreira 6y ago
      according to you. maybe you should be more open to other perspectives.
    - pwdisswordfish8 6y ago

neolog 6y ago

Isn't it good to have a prominent person who can say the things others are too vulnerable to say?

antonvs 6y ago
Such as that exploitation of underage girls by much older adults is ok? If RMS had something important to say here, the overall response would be different. But he doesn't. He's just an immature creep who's been coddled too much his whole life.
- jdmoreira 6y ago
  He never said that. I read the email chain and he never even hinted at that.
spacemanmatt 6y ago
Clearly in this case it depends on what was said. I can't believe people are standing up to say RMS deserves a blank check to speak for the FSF after his past comments.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Grustaf 6y ago

So basically he is allowed to hold heretical beliefs, as long as he hides them? I'm not sure that's a great improvement over Soviet times. EDIT: I've always disliked him immensely as a matter of personal preference, but for all I care he should be able to be an outspoken communist nazi as long as he makes sensible decisions in his work capacity.

MikeUt 6y ago
My opinion is the opposite of yours - I like RMS immensely, but believe he's no longer fit to represent free software. The article that changed my mind [1] stated that, in short, making public statements on controversial topics unrelated to free software is harmful to the FSF's mission, regardless of how correct those statements may be. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
- Grustaf 6y ago
  It seems that this statement by Stallman is what upsets him the most: "Sexual assault: this term is so broad that using it is misleading. The term includes rape, groping, sexual harassment, and other acts. These acts are not merely different in degree. They are different in kind. Rape is a grave crime. Being groped is unpleasant but not as grave as robbery. Sexual harassment is a not an action at all, but rather a pattern of actions that constitutes economic unfairness. How can it make sense to group these behaviors things together? It never makes sense. News articles, studies, and laws should avoid that term." That doesn't seem very controversial or upsetting, and even when he does say things I think are upsetting, how is that related to him promoting free software? As long as he obeys the laws I don't care if he would actually like to change them. The greater questions is: Why exactly do we need everyone to agree with our own morals? Isn't that the exact opposite of democracy? Especially in the US, which is a melting pot of people from various cultures, isn't the whole point that people should be able to have whatever morals they want, but everyone needs to obey the laws, and then every few years people vote on what the rules should be?
  - MikeUt 6y ago