4 ms·

Therefore, his contributions in the field of Open Source and software freedom are null and void, is it. Because, everyone has to be a prophet who we can take as

Therefore, his contributions in the field of Open Source and software freedom are null and void, is it. Because, everyone has to be a prophet who we can take as a 'role model'. ... This obsession with making Jesuses out of everyone to follow as 'role models' in the US is really alien to those of us who live elsewhere in the world. Its amazing how you people did not 'cancel' literally every. single. prominent figure in near and distant history. All of them had something that would require canceling at this very moment - Washington had dentures made of slaves' teeth, Edison stole inventions and electrocuted elephants, Schweitzer believed that black people were inferior and so on. ... In this particular topic, what is defined as 'pedophilia' isnt even clear: Is it prepubescent children? Or is it a 16 year old sleeping with an 18 year old? Even as 16 is a legal age for marrying and joining the military and dying in almost everywhere around the world, including various European countries? Or are 25 year olds still 'children' like how some lunatics are trying to popularize?

ryandrake 4y ago
People seem to have major difficulty separating the person from the message. Look at the current HN "Nuclear Power movie" thread. Most of the comments have devolved into a debate about whether Oliver Stone is a good person or not, totally irrelevant. Any time a prominent figure is mentioned here, there's always someone who crawls out of the woodwork to comb back through everything the figure wrote just so he can post "bbbbbbut look! On February 12, 2004, he said a racist thing, so obviously nothing else he has said in his entire life should be listened to!"
- unity1001 4y ago
  > good person That's the worst part - the 'good' and 'evil' in such situations are being religiously definded just like how 'the faithful' and 'heretics' were defined back in the earlier ages when religion dominated the society. Everyone is either 'with us' or 'against us', ie, a heretic. And being heretic is so easy - you just need to contradict whatever is the dominant thing at a given moment and you are outcast. Just like how it was in the earlier ages. Take the Stone case: 80% of the world opposes the American viewpoint on Russia and 'Putin', and 'the West' is isolated in this affair like how various Angloamerican outlets recently noted. https://www.politico.eu/article/west-more-united-also-isolated-war-ukraine-russia-nato/ https://www.politico.eu/article/west-more-united-also-isolat... I actually watched Stone's Putin interviews. What Russian leaders and Putin have communicated in those interviews were quite rational arguments, and actually, their statements about American imperialism, NATO etc are how precisely the rest of the world sees 'the West'. But, in an amazing case study for social sciences, the public in especially the Angloamerican West are !extremely! enthusiastic in whatever 'current thing' and whichever 'current enemy' that their establishment sells them. A gigantic gap in how this 'West' sees itself, what it believes what the rest of the world thinks, and what the rest of the world actually thinks. But then again, this is not so different from what was observed in the UK during the Brexit process...
- alex_lav 4y ago
  [flagged]

ryandrake 4y ago

People seem to have major difficulty separating the person from the message. Look at the current HN "Nuclear Power movie" thread. Most of the comments have devolved into a debate about whether Oliver Stone is a good person or not, totally irrelevant. Any time a prominent figure is mentioned here, there's always someone who crawls out of the woodwork to comb back through everything the figure wrote just so he can post "bbbbbbut look! On February 12, 2004, he said a racist thing, so obviously nothing else he has said in his entire life should be listened to!"

unity1001 4y ago
> good person That's the worst part - the 'good' and 'evil' in such situations are being religiously definded just like how 'the faithful' and 'heretics' were defined back in the earlier ages when religion dominated the society. Everyone is either 'with us' or 'against us', ie, a heretic. And being heretic is so easy - you just need to contradict whatever is the dominant thing at a given moment and you are outcast. Just like how it was in the earlier ages. Take the Stone case: 80% of the world opposes the American viewpoint on Russia and 'Putin', and 'the West' is isolated in this affair like how various Angloamerican outlets recently noted. https://www.politico.eu/article/west-more-united-also-isolated-war-ukraine-russia-nato/ https://www.politico.eu/article/west-more-united-also-isolat... I actually watched Stone's Putin interviews. What Russian leaders and Putin have communicated in those interviews were quite rational arguments, and actually, their statements about American imperialism, NATO etc are how precisely the rest of the world sees 'the West'. But, in an amazing case study for social sciences, the public in especially the Angloamerican West are !extremely! enthusiastic in whatever 'current thing' and whichever 'current enemy' that their establishment sells them. A gigantic gap in how this 'West' sees itself, what it believes what the rest of the world thinks, and what the rest of the world actually thinks. But then again, this is not so different from what was observed in the UK during the Brexit process...
alex_lav 4y ago
[flagged]