(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:00 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | The overlap between autistic spectrum conditions and borderline personality disorder | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | greatartiste 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | There can be a very fine line. A few years ago I worked with someone who was a bullying objectionable arse especially to younger staff. Eventually it all caught up with him and with HR breathing down his neck he managed to acquire a Asperger's diagnosis which was his get out of jail free card. A colleague of mine called it 'medicalising c*ntishness'. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | bjourne 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Asperger's syndrome doesn't exist as a diagnosis anymore because the diagnosis was dropped in DSM-5. When it existed, I can assure you, it was not something you just acquired like a toy in a box of cereals. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | etrabroline 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >thoughtless / mean / an ass | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | This is precisely what people with autism tend to be like because of the difficulty people with autism have empathizing with others and seeing things from other people's points of view. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | There's a difference between your perception of someone and what they are actually like. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | The asshole is thoughtless because they believe others to be less important than themselves. The person with autism is (may be) thoughtless because their brain isn't wired to be thoughtful. Or they actually are thoughtful, but don't know how to express it in a way that others can understand. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | Avshalom 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | I know a lot of autistic people and they're all scrupulously kind and emotionally intelligent. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | The idea that autistic people are assholes is an artifact of every other gamer on the internet self diagnosing themselves with aspergers in the 00s and then using that as an excuse to be un-introspectively cruel to each other. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | gizmo686 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Diagnosed asperg here; would probably be autistic if I got diagnosed today. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | If I appear scrupulously kind to you, it is because I am compensating. If I appear emotionally intelligent to you, it is because I had to learn what is literally instinct to most people. At least for me, I am able to compensate effectively and pass in most social situations, but it is exhausting. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | When I read RMS's writing that lead to the conflict in question, it struck me as an entirely reasonable piece. When I read the responses to it, the message I got, loud and clear, was "my thought patterns are not welcome here" | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | Avshalom 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Not to be like a patronizing son of a bitch here but: | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | that you choose to be kind does not make you less kind. that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real. that you willingly exhaust yourself exercising those skills is absolutely the opposite of being an asshole. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | gizmo686 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | As I said, I can pass. My point is that other people making me put in the work to pass are being assholes. The irony of them doing so in the name of diversity and inclusion is not lost on me. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | > that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | That is a rather technical statement, that would be dependent on exactly what you mean by "emotional intelligence". Relying on general intelligence to do tasks that most people accomplish with more specialized brain power is certainly different, regardless of if you want to classify it as emotional intelligence or not. | Mar 27 00:00 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | DiggyJohnson 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Word for word, what you said here is extremely valuable to me. I hope that this isn’t seen as the typical guideline-breaking +1. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Sometimes I resent the patchy compensation mechanisms I’ve built up. It’s almost impossible to explain the frustration, the exhaustion, of choosing to be kind in a fashion that differs from my own understanding of kindness. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | I am inherently kind, and I don’t have to choose that. I am confident in that statement. What I do have to force is mapping my default expression of kindness to the norms that friends, family, and acquaintances will understand. This is so important, because failing to do so means pushing all those people away. I feel like I can never let my guard down. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Then I remember to stop talking about myself; cue flash of (rational) anxiety; catch myself from a mental break; go and take a 50 minute long shower. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | I’m so thankful for the people that give me a chance to reset, learn, and grow from these iterations. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | Aloha 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | And god, it's so exhausting. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | I have a generic model and I develop ones for individual people too, what one key find normal another will find distressing - and none of it makes any sense to me at all. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | I would say the point is that it's extremely easy to unwillingly appear as an asshole if you have to put an extraordinary amount of effort into not appearing as one just because you don't operate based on the same social constructs as most of other people do by default. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | wizzwizz4 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | The current push-back isn't about that conflict. (If we're talking about the same conflict, I agree with your assessment.) It's about everything else. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | spiritplumber 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | So much this. Thanks for putting it in words better than I would have | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | SilverRed 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:01 |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | Autism is very different for everyone who has it. No one is saying that autistic people are assholes, but that stallman may not see or understand how his comments are taken or why people will get upset when the comment is factually correct. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | howinteresting 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Speaking as an autistic person, that really does not matter. Even though I don't believe in free will, I do believe that a functioning society requires people with power (like RMS, in his capacity as a free software leader) to be held responsible for the harm they cause regardless of how neurodivergent they are. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | What about all the other people who were excluded from the movement because RMS was an ass? A common human fallacy is to overindex on the contributions of assholes, while ignoring the potential contributions of those who were excluded by their actions. | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | bobsled 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | How does one accurately quantify hypothetical contributions by people who may or may not exist? | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:01 | |
| schestowitz | howinteresting 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Most things in life aren't quantifiable, unfortunately. In our field we're spoiled by how many things can be reduced to numbers, but when it comes to interactions between humans it's essentially impossible. So instead, we have to use subjective evaluations. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | My subjective evaluation, having met RMS in person and looked at the consistent patterns in his behavior, is that he is "below replacement value" -- he has overall caused far more harm than the average person in his position would have. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:02 | |
| schestowitz | bobsled 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Thank you for the clarification. Please understand that I don't mean to be pedantic. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:02 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | I agree with the sibling that there are many things in life that we just can't reduce to numbers. Sometimes you can't make a decision based on hard, irrefutable data. You just have to go by what you think will or won't happen based on the possible choices. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | In this case, though we actually could, if we wanted to, find some data. We could go around and ask a bunch of people if they wanted to get involved with the FSF but didn't, and see how many of those people were turned off by RMS. Another option could be to look at the demographics of people getting involved in the FSF before and after RMS had been outsted, and compare. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | None of that is perfect, and especially the second option would only give you a correlation, not necessarily causation. But, again, our data will always be incomplete, and you just have to go with what your experience tells you will or won't happen. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:02 | |
| schestowitz | Avshalom 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Literally: | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | >>thoughtless / mean / an ass | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | >This is precisely what people with autism tend to be | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:02 | |
| schestowitz | denton-scratch 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Ah. I did that (self-diagnosing as an aspie). I'm not. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | It's not a special preoperty of spectrum people that they have to learn what neuro-whatsit folks know "instinctively"; we all have to learn these things. Socialisation is learned, not instinctive. You don't have to have a disorder to have poor social skills. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | It could be that your poor social skills are the result of inadequate experience or training; it might be that you don't care much (not because you don't care about others, but just because the approval of others doesn't matter much to you, and expending energy on gaining that approval is wasted energy). | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Not needing the approval of others isn't a disease; it's a mark of psychological health. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:02 | |
| schestowitz | screye 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | warning: super anecdotal | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | I have found the difference to be willingness to reflect or to what extent they are trying. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | A lot of my socially clueless friends (can't speak for if they lie on the spectrum) are delighted when I offer them a new set of rules that were previously invisible, instead of insulting them for not 'getting it'. They love being told what the lines between mean&blunt or curt&concise are. They can work around context well too, as long as it is explicitly laid out to them. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Mean people (adults) are usually one of: | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | 1. Neuro-diverse people who don't know they are mean | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | 2. People with insecurities they are trying to work on | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | 3. People with insecurities they refuse to acknowledge | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | #3 is not worth it. #2 can seek help using traditional means. #1 needs some training wheels and personalized instruction to work their way up to socially well adjusted. Think of it as a person with a learning disability. | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:02 | |
| schestowitz | wmf 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:02 |
| schestowitz | Whether they can control it? | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:03 | |
| schestowitz | DaiPlusPlus 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Then why would someone choose to be an ass - or generally choose to be unlikable? | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:03 | |
| schestowitz | nostrademons 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | It's usually a matter of priorities. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually harass women because 1 out of 10 times, it gets them laid. Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. Or they stop paying rent because there's an eviction moratorium, even though they could, because it saves them money and their landlord has no way to enforce agreements anyway. Or | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | they sell drugs to children because they want money. Or they cut people down because it makes them feel big in the moment. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:03 | |
| schestowitz | sellyme 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | > Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:03 | |
| schestowitz | nostrademons 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | These are all examples where one party in the interaction has come away from it saying "What a jerk!" | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:03 | |
| schestowitz | joshuamorton 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | This is entirely contextual. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 00:03 | |
| schestowitz | It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:03 | |
| schestowitz | sellyme 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | > It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:03 | |
| schestowitz | danielheath 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | In the extreme, it totally is. It's important to be right about the important things; it's nice to be right about irrelevant details too, but it's not nearly as important as maintaining a strong network of collaborators. | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:03 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:04 | |
| schestowitz | sellyme 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky in who I associate with, but no-one I would consider a potential "collaborator" (either in professional or personal life) would ever demand I be incorrect about something to suit their ideals. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | I've been trying to come up with examples where that might happen and the best one I can think of is someone's young child asked you if Santa was real, but even then I'm about 50/50 on whether anyone in my social circles would care. I know at least a few who'd be pretty disgusted if I didn't tell the truth in that situation. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Now I recognise that this almost certainly is not representative of the general populace, but this is also one specific example (and the most egregious one I could come up with), whereas there's entire history courses written on the catastrophes that occur when people choose diplomacy over the right thing. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:04 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Well, that's kinda the thing. If something was in one of those history courses, then they were important enough that it mattered. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Playing into the Santa Claus lie with your friend's kid is absolutely inconsequential to you, but it could mean a lot to that kid (and to the parents) to keep that lie alive a bit longer. (And if telling the truth to that kid, against what the parents would wish, is that important to you, I'd suggest you re-examine your priorities.) | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Context matters! Sometimes being right is essential to making some important thing work out. But hey, sometimes being diplomatic (and allowing the other person to be wrong) also can be essential to make some important thing work out. The big thing is knowing the difference and acting appropriately, which is sometimes hard to do in the moment. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. If the parents really don't care, sure, go nuts... though if they didn't care, I'd expect the kid to already know the truth anyway. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:04 | |
| schestowitz | sellyme 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Why is the desire of the parents more important than the desire of the child? Remember that we're talking about a scenario where the child is explicitly asking. They want you to tell the truth, their parents want you to perpetuate a lie. It's an easy choice for me to make. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:04 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Because we as a society have decided that children are not capable of making informed decisions, so parents get to decide for them on many/most/all things (the number of which tends to decrease with age, zeroing out at 18 or whatever the local age of majority is). You may not agree with that state of affairs, but that is the reality of the situation. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | You may not see the useful function of the Santa Claus fantasy[0], but it is not your (or my) place to decide that for a child or their parents. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Let's try with something a bit less trivial, something that my young nephew had to deal with not too long ago: death. One day kid realizes that grandpa hasn't visited in a long while, and ask parent what's up. Parents don't think kid is emotionally ready to have the death talk. So they spin a story about grandpa having to move away, and how grandpa loves his grandkid very much, but won't be able to visit anymore. And let's say you' | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | re over visiting your friend, and their kid walks up to you and says "my grandpa had to move far away and I miss him... do you know why he can't visit me?" You know that your friend's father died recently. If your answer isn't "well, what did your parents say?" followed by affirming whatever the answer is, you've probably done a bit of harm to that child's emotional well being, and likely have introduced some trust issues between | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | the child and parents. What right do you have to do that? I would not be surprised if your friend stops inviting you over after that. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Don't get me wrong; I think many decisions parents make for their kids probably aren't the best ones. There's no authoritative parenting handbook, and most parents do the best they can. But it is not anyone else's place to "correct" someone's parenting decisions, outside of active harm and neglect. (And no, telling a lie about Santa Claus or death does not clear that bar.) | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | [0] Personally I'm not a big fan of it myself; while Santa Claus can be a useful tool to help a child's imagination develop, I really dislike how tied Christmas has become to consumer culture and materialism. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:04 | |
| schestowitz | sellyme 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > and likely have introduced some trust issues between the child and parents. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | I couldn't help but laugh at this. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | If you want to avoid trust issues, maybe don't lie to people. Seems like an easier solution than lying to them and calling other people assholes if they don't perpetuate your lies. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > What right do you have to do that? | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | There is a conversation occurring between two people. One of them asks a question. Both parties in this conversation want the question to be answered truthfully. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | You are saying that I don't have the right to do so because someone who is not involved in said conversation wants me to lie instead. This is insane. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:04 | |
| schestowitz | lmm 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > Maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky in who I associate with, but no-one I would consider a potential "collaborator" (either in professional or personal life) would ever demand I be incorrect about something to suit their ideals. | Mar 27 00:04 |
| schestowitz | I find that very hard to believe. To be correct you not only need to be able to say carefully thought-out, nuanced things; you also need to be able to speculate wildly, to take half-baked ideas where they might lead. But the half-baked version of some important truths probably sounds exactly like the most offensively ignorant notions you could think of. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | dataduck 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | > the half-baked version of some important truths probably sounds exactly like the most offensively ignorant notions you could think of. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | And good people are the ones who won't punish you for that. I'd agree an entire social group being this open minded seems unlikely in 2021, but GP may just have really effective filter bubble. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | ethbr0 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | And I guess part of my question was that what you said (pretty close to my own understanding of the definitions) is predicated on piercing the veil of intent. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | AnthonyMouse 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | The answer, then, is to not try to judge people you don't know. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them? | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | ethbr0 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Who said anything about destroy? | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | And that's a pretty important distinction. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | AnthonyMouse 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | > Who said anything about destroy? | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Some jerk named Twitter is my understanding. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | > Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This sorts itself out with any kind of long-term relationship because then you get to know them well enough to tell whether or not they're an ass. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | But the first time you meet someone, it's prisoner's dilemma. Everybody defaulting to defect because you're afraid the other guy might be doing the same thing is not going to end well. | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | See also superrationality etc.: | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality | Mar 27 00:05 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-en.wikipedia.org | Superrationality - Wikipedia | Mar 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | gotostatement 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Not to derail the conversation but I find it amusing to put sexual harassment in the same sentence as not paying rent | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | nostrademons 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | I find it amusing that I can't tell whether you mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent or not paying rent is dramatically more serious than sexual harassment. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Both examples - really all of the examples other than "selling drugs to children", which is from Breaking Bad - are taken from real-world conversations with people that basically said "What a jerk!" The person complaining about their non-paying tenant basically accepts sexual harassment as how the world works. The person (people really, it's a composite of a half-dozen or so conversations) complaining about the sexual harassers | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | would likely find nothing wrong with a tenant skipping out on rent. Both are women, though a generation apart. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | gotostatement 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | not worth getting into the nitty gritty but I'll just say that I mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | monsieurbanana 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | And this is why nothing can ever be safely said on internet without putting huge disclaimers everywhere. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | "/!\ I do not mean to liken sexual harassment to rent default /!\". | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | gotostatement 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Yeah I mean, it's not exactly a huge leap of logic based on reading the post. If it's a misunderstanding, that's just one of the perils of written communication, and this gives the author a chance to reply. The societal role of rent/landlords is an active political issue, far from consensus, so it's not just a nitpick to jump in on the implication. Noone is being cancelled | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | jjoonathan 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Stallman was defending a friend and, by my reading, logically correct in the narrow point he was making. Anyone can sympathize with those priorities. However, he chose to place them above social realpolitik like "don't touch sufficiently radioactive subjects" and "almost nobody has time to dissect your argument so you'll win or lose the optics game on fuzzy associations alone." To be principled in this matter was to be antisocial. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Most of us, myself included, would drop the principles in order to get along with everyone else, but that's not how Stallman rolled. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | danielheath 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | I agree, but I'd note that Stallman was head of the FSF in part because he would never drop the principles no matter what the stakes. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | marcus_holmes 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Some people roll that way. Their childhood (or genes) gave them a personality that enjoys conflict, or that only feels good about themselves if someone else is feeling bad, or enjoys hurting people. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | It's most clearly visible in griefers in online games, because the social consequences of griefing are minimal. Some people are just plain nasty. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | But I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's ridiculous that it's been interpreted this way. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | bryanrasmussen 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | making oneself likeable to people one doesn't find particularly likeable themselves is a lot of work, the people who are labeled neurotypical are often jerks to the people who are labeled neuroatypical so why not use one's gifts as a neuroatypical person to be unlikable in return. | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | on edit: explanatory, not recommending | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | yakaccount4 4 days ago [5 more] | Mar 27 00:06 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | spurgu 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Or even being aware of it? | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | Sophistifunk 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Wether or not you like them. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | stickyricky 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | One is a personality trait and the other is an anatomical or physiological deviation from normal human development. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | esja 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Intent. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | eyelidlessness 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | As a neurodivergent person, intent is the most frequent source of conflict for me. Where I mean well but say the wrong thing almost always sits at the bottom of the well of what goes wrong between me and my people I care about. Intent isn’t enough. Listening, caring, and having intuition for what people need is a much larger task than abstract care and empathy. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | chabad360 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | One is someone with a diagnosed mental health disorder(s), and one is just that: an ass. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | asoneth 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Specifically in the case of employment I'm all for erring on the side of asking employers to be as accommodating as possible. But there are cases where someone's disabilities/attributes reasonably restrict what roles they can perform. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | For example, airlines don't employ pilots with extremely poor vision or flight attendants who are too large to fit through the cabin. Someone who relies on a wheelchair may have difficulty becoming a firefighter or a first responder and someone with Tourette's syndrome might have difficulty getting a job as a spokesperson or announcer. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | My understanding is that the above constraints are not illegal discrimination (in the US) because the disability/attribute impacts that person's ability to successfully perform key job functions. Maybe extreme PC-warriors take issue with that, but I think most people would agree that these are reasonable constraints. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | With respect to neurodivergence it seems dependent on whether it impacts someone's ability to perform their core job functions. As per above we should ask employers should be as accommodating as possible, so I believe an errant joke or comment shouldn't result in anyone being "canceled". But if someone is chronically incapable of processing social cues and/or has trouble interacting with coworkers or customers without triggering HR | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | complaints then they may need to find a different role that doesn't require as much interpersonal interaction. That's unfortunate for the person in question but it doesn't seem any more discriminatory than an airline reassigning a pilot whose vision is failing. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | silver-machine 1 day ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | > When applied to autistic or neurodivergent individuals, however, PC norms work to disadvantage an already disadvantaged minority against groups that are both larger and often more economically and culturally free. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | are you saying that the undergrads that Stallman harassed at MIT are more economically and culturally free than he is? Are you saying that we should give a pass to bad bosses who turn their subordinates lives' into a tower defense game? | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | lyssa17 1 day ago [–] | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | This is honestly such a disappointment. I used to appreciate your thoughts on a lot of issues and particularly loved that you were in the intersection of haskell and harry potter fanfic. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Venkatesh Rao is generally contentless and writes long winded tracts that don't actually make any kind of coherent argument for what they're saying. | Mar 27 00:07 |
| schestowitz | Do you really think Stallman's long history of sexual harassment is because he was too gosh-darned oblivious to realize he shouldn't be doing that? This isn't exactly "Oh he maintained eye-contact for half a second too long and the thought police are after him" territory jfc. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:08 | |
| schestowitz | Rule35 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | It's the law of maximum outrage. What justifies more third-party outrage victimology? That an ND {of some intersections} was unfairly expected to know the rules, or that a rude {same intersections} was making {some other intersections} uncomfortable. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Harsh truth, but an easy rule for NDs to follow. Anything you say in public will be judged for its potential. If someone can get points for making it sound bad, they will. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:08 | |
| schestowitz | Rule35 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | The article mentions the Damore incident but doesn't capture the essence of the war. It wrongly draws many self-aware groups whereas it's really two, marxists and lulzites, fighting a war for territory on top of everyone's homes, randomly causing a bit of allegiance to whoever was winning in their area. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Gamers aren't a coherent group or right wing in general (think of the ages...) but "their side" (the side trampling on them) is anti-left, so the gamers were lumped together and drawn on the right. The 'Autism Spectrum' is the most "centrist" I've ever seen, but because the left uses them to launch its attacks from they're drawn as 'left territory'. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Specifically, the Neuro-divergent group isn't an active group, kind of by its nature. ND people on the map are more of a victim pool who just get picked on because they're easy to maneuver into mistakes. Like the whole Damore incident was Google saying "Does our HR policy look fat" and only James was tricked into engaging. He was more a convenient scapegoat to hurt to consolidate their power than he was an ideological enemy. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Certain groups have all-or-nothing ideological traps laying around everywhere and I think it's that these groups, like armies using landmines in areas with children, are especially harmful to societal non-combatants. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:08 | |
| schestowitz | kmeisthax 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | The thing to note is that the worldview of social justice advocates is not "advocate for all oppressed groups", it's "advocate for all oppressed groups up to intersectionality". At least in America, we used to go through phases of, say, black power groups being kinda sexist, and women's liberation movements being hella racist. This poses a unique opportunity for people who oppose both: just use one to harm the other. For example, | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | the founder of Planned Parenthood was willing to advocate for themselves in the language of eugenics, so if you hate abortion rights, you just constantly bring up all the awful things they said about black people. There's nothing stopping you from switching tactics a day later and complaining about, say, a BLM riot that winds up shutting down a Planned Parenthood clinic. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | The social justice advocate's response to that is intersectionality: a defense mechanism of not engaging in advocacy that would benefit one oppressed group at the expense of another. They're not always great at this - some social conflicts are just difficult to actually make judgments on (e.g. Israel/Palestine). The thing is, though - I doubt "drop the autistics" is going to pick up steam in social justice circles. Autism, and | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | neurodivergence in general, tracks very well with queer sexual orientations and gender identities. Social mores intended to enforce rigid gender roles and heteronormativity simply don't work on people who can't parse them. (The contrapositive of this is why there's a huge push for non-gendered children's toys.) Ergo, it's very unlikely that you'd see the social justice left tear itself apart like this, and more likely that you'd see | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | people arguing that "drop the autistics" is bullshit. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | I'm also going to point out that, as an autistic person myself, the stricter speech rules of the social justice left aren't terribly difficult to parse. The prior eras of social mores were far stricter because we didn't see them as coercive and thus didn't question their power, and it's somewhat troubling that people don't view it as an improvement from what we had before. It's sort of like how people coming from proprietary | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | software sometimes argue that the GPL is non-free because it has some restrictions that don't conform to the unstated mores of proprietary licensing. Much of the reaction people have to these speech rules comes from two different places: | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | 1. The people reacting to these rules are neurotypical, and used to invisible speech rules enforced by people with a common cultural heritage such that they wouldn't disagree on their unstated rules. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | 2. Many people in the social justice community are autistic (see above) and also had a hand in writing the rules. Of course, if people who can't parse social cues write the rules of a society, those rules are going to be explicitly stated rather than inferred. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | In other words, the problem isn't that the social justice left is going to throw out neurodivergent people, it's that the social justice left is autistic, in cultural control, and writing the new rules of society in a way neurotypicals don't understand. | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | (Side note: #9 is a conflict that's been brewing in the back of my head for a while now. I love P2P tech but think the entirety of cryptocurrency has been a dead-end full of scams.) | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:08 | |
| schestowitz | skissane 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | > 1. The people reacting to these rules are neurotypical | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | How do you know that everyone who disagrees with the "speech rules" of the "social justice left" is "neurotypical"? | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | I think "aneurotypical" people (whether ADHD or ASD or whatever) are just as capable of having a wide variety of different political views as "neurotypical" people are. Take any current political or social question, you are going to have a wide diversity of opinion about it, and I don't see why people with ASD/ADHD/etc would have any less viewpoint diversity than society as a whole does. (If anything, people with ASD might have more | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | viewpoint diversity than average, due to putting less value on social conformity leading to a greater willingness to consider and even espouse unpopular opinions.) | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | > it's that the social justice left is autistic | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | I really doubt that. Possibly, people with ASD are over-represented on the "social justice left". (I've heard the same claim made about the "alt-right" – although the two claims are not mutually exclusive). But I think the clear majority people on the "social justice left" don't have ASD, and conversely a lot of people with ASD don't identify with the "social justice left". | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:08 | |
| schestowitz | noobermin 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | Some of this is good but I don't understand what China on the map has to do with anything. It also isn't mentioned in the article at all... | Mar 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | I'm pretty sure China cares little about American political correctness wars. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | throwaway894345 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | China likes to portray America as a racist country (see the fourth installment of the comically overt propaganda series Ip Man on Netflix), but beyond that I’m not sure. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | john4532452 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Its important to emphasis one thing about Ribbonfarm. The author wholly supports for Hindu caste system. This is where his arguments come from. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | pratio 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Do you have a source for this? | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | john4532452 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | One source i can show is from his blog post https://web.archive.org/web/20210202083240/https://www.ribbo... | Mar 27 00:09 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://web.archive.org/web/20210202083240/https://www.ribbo ) | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | > As thoughtless teenagers, we made crude SC/ST jokes. Here’s one: at a urinal in a government recruitment center, there is a line marked on the wall with the note, “if you can pee above this line, you get the job.” | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | This was unnecessary considering the dalits commiting sucide after joining IIT or other elite colleges due to harrasment from the Brahmins community students. Even if you give the benefit of doubt on this one simply as telling a story, look for the next quote. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | > .. but I am enough of a free-speecher to acknowledge that it has a right to | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | This... This is the mindset of the upper caste Brahmins. They don't want the reservations based on caste but at the same time they don't want it to go away, simply because it provides birth entitlement at the cost of the other castes. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | It does not matter he is an atheist. Even the founder of Hindutva philosophy is an atheist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar whom these modern educated caste supporting intellectuals admire. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-en.wikipedia.org | Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - Wikipedia | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | That blog post is quite long, If you read the entire post you get the impression that after all caste system is not bad, just the implementation had gone wrong. In fact any one who says caste is not that bad especially in USA, it is very likely they are from upper caste brahmin community. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | zeruch 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | It's not just neurodivergence, but its that he recognizes where he jabs people and pretty much admits he doesn't care. I once had this conversation about with with ESR and I remember him saying "RMS doesn't care about the 'social overhead' of most person to person interactions" and so he kind of does his own normative preferences, thinking that because he finds them ideal, that others shouldn't be offended....but then he seems | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | offended by an infinitely long list of things, and his intellect seems to treat this asymmetry as one big blind spot. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | I've listened to him be rude to former co-workers (one seemingly on the basis that she was a woman in a technical role) and an absolute one man clown rodeo at various trade show events. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | > It's not just neurodivergence, but its that he recognizes where he jabs people and pretty much admits he doesn't care. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | This is the thing for me. Being neuroatypical and unable to follow typical social cues, or having trouble expressing thoughtfulness or care is just a fact of life. But not being thoughtful and not caring is a choice. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:09 | |
| schestowitz | prepend 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | > But not being thoughtful and not caring is a choice. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | Not if you’re neurodivergent. I think the challenge is knowing who has different brain chemistry and who has regular chemistry and is choosing. | Mar 27 00:09 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | dralley 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Many people who have worked directly with RMS for many years say he knows, he understands, but he doesn't care. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa... | Mar 27 00:10 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa ) | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | bobsled 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | zeruch 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | "I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time" | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | I do. How the hell do you think I figured it out for RMS? That same critical filtering can happen not just across time, but across various axes of context. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | I didn't say that he's "irredeemable" but that the constant hagiographic/endless forgiveness for his chronic boorishness by his acolytes is annoying and serves no benefit. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | rbanffy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | > the constant hagiographic/endless forgiveness for his chronic boorishness by his acolytes is annoying and serves no benefit. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Most relevant is that it deprives him of useful feedback neurodivergent people can actually use to better communicate with neurotypical colleagues. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | fuzxi 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Karl Marx and his letter to Engels regarding Lasalle comes to mind, as an example. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.html | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-hiaw.org | Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1862 | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | afuchs 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | > I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | This is illegible and does not seem to follow from the rest of this thread. I'm missing where the GP made a statement about a person's "philosophical brilliance." Did I miss something, or is this meant to infer something else? | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | bobsled 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | I believed I was responding to a comment by the user "zeruch". I may not be using this comment section correctly. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | >His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:10 | |
| schestowitz | afuchs 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Sorry about that. Trying to figure out what both comments meant to convey given the ambiguity of language, especially in a heated discussion. | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:10 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | bobsled 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | No problem at all. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | dreen 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | > His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Sounds a bit like Diogenes the Cynic. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | Balgair 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Glad I'm not the only one that thought this. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Stallman seems to be in a similar vein as many of the 'great philosophers'. In that his ideas are challenging and difficult, much like himself. Making the man not one that you like all that much. The phenomenon reminds me of an often misinterpreted Edmond de Goncourt quote: | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | "Almost no one loves the genius until he or she is dead. But then we do, because now life is better." | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | The quote is not talking about how the genius made our lives better through their work/effort. Rather, how they were so insufferable. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | As to Stallman, only time will tell if he will join the Great Conversation as a loud voice or not. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | brundolf 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | This checks out. I work with somebody on the spectrum and he's one of the kindest, most thoughtful people I've ever worked with. He doesn't always pick up on cues (though he is pretty good at it at this point), but he asks questions when he's not sure and just generally goes to great lengths to be considerate. Even more so than many people who aren't on the spectrum, in fact. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | account42 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | > I've listened to him be rude to former co-workers (one seemingly on the basis that she was a woman in a technical role) | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Care to back that accusation up with anything? | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | zeruch 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | It was a direct statement he made to a colleague when we both were at VA Research and he berated her for some item related to how we were hosting the FSF at the time. That's where I first saw that he is gracious when it suits him and is otherwise generally a boor. He's done nothing since to change that view. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | I also observed him trying to dress people down ad nauseum for a litany of inanities: telling me and several other staff from VA when it changed from VA Research to VA Linus that it should be "VA GNU/Linux" while the rest of us were trying to have a conversation with other people. Or the time he could barely control his irritation at an awards event when Linus Torvalds' toddler daughter upstaged him at an awards presentation. Or | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | when he seemed clueless and/or ambivalent about any number of things that other people felt. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Yes, I have a strong negative opinion about RMS. No, it is not based on tertiary opinions, but direct or near-line observations. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | hourislate 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | It's sad that the media outlets and "Woke Twitter", etc, were misquoting him saying he was defending Jeffrey Epstein and doing everything they could to get him fired from the FSF, etc. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | What's even worse was none of these "WOKE" were even concerned with "the victims of sexual assault" or any other noble cause. This was organized for ideological reasons and their goal was and is to replace everyone in a relevant position with ideologically aligned people. They are the kind of people that believe that any speech or freedoms that run counter to their agenda should be regulated to fit their definition of a common good. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | He did nothing wrong. He is a brilliant person. | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:11 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | dkersten 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | The worst part is that the blog post that started a lot of that literally quoted RMS one sentence and the rephrased it as something completely different in the very next sentence. And nobody called them out for it. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | He basically just said "Minsky may not have known because Epstein most likely forced the girl into acting as if her was willing" (paraphrased from memory) and it got turned into "RMS said the girl was willing". | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | wrycoder 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Those who read the extensive threads back in 2019 will remember that Minsky, at the time, commented to one of his associates about the interaction with the young woman. That’s how Stallman heard of it. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | And, further, there is no evidence that Minsky took any further action relative to her. Quite the contrary - he seemed bemused by the situation. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Some of the discussion in these threads strongly implies that Minsky had a sexual interaction and that Stallman was defending him. This is wrong, in both cases. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | visitor1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Source please? | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | wrycoder 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Minsky’s wife denied the allegations. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/jeffrey-epsteins-alleged-sex-s... | Mar 27 00:12 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/jeffrey-epsteins-alleged-sex-s ) | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | You will have to dig out the 2019 emails yourself, I didn’t bookmark them. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | wrycoder 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Eyewitness: Minsky rebuffed her | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:12 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pjmedia.com | Instapundit » Blog Archive » FAKE NEWS? This New York Times story about Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to the MIT Media Lab includes thi… | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | tw04 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | What Stallman said verbatim: | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | >The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | >We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | We'll set aside for a moment that he's trying to argue the only way that sexual assault can occur is if the attacker literally assaults the victim. It wasn't really the time or the place to try defending a friend by arguing semantics given the accusations. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | I guess if some billionaire flew me to a private island in the Carribean where young attractive girls started throwing themselves at me, and I was the age and... attractiveness of Minsky, giant alarm bells would have been blaring in my head and I think that of pretty much every sane American male. To not take the entirety of the situation into account and try to paint it as an innocent "I met a girl at the bar who lied about how old | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | she was" is more than a bit disingenuous | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | adwn 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | > I guess if some billionaire flew me to a private island in the Carribean where young attractive girls started throwing themselves at me, and I was the age and... attractiveness of Minsky, giant alarm bells would have been blaring in my head [...] | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | As you may or may not know, some women will voluntarily have sex with men in exchange for money, no coercion or assault required. If a billionaire flew you to a private island with attractive woman offering to have sex with you, then the presumption that those women are paid prostitutes is not that far-fetched. | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:12 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:12 | |
| schestowitz | tw04 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >As you may or may not know, some women will voluntarily have sex with men in exchange for money, no coercion or assault required. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Which is also illegal. And if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on. Which as a 60-year-old - you should know better. Period. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >If a billionaire flew you to a private island with attractive woman offering to have sex with you, then the presumption that those women are paid prostitutes is not that far-fetched. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | So... sex trafficking. By definition. Which is illegal both where it took place and in all party's country of origin. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:13 | |
| schestowitz | adwn 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | > Which is also illegal. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Where? Even within the US, prostitution laws vary wildly. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | > And if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Did Minsky know that they weren't adults? Do you have a source for that? | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | > So... sex trafficking. By definition. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Wrong. Not even by definition. If you disagree, show me a valid definition of sex trafficking that includes "flying to an island to have sex with voluntary prostitutes". | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:13 | |
| schestowitz | tw04 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >Where? Even within the US, prostitution laws vary wildly. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | I guess it's fortunate we have that information: | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Minsky is from Massachusets: illegal. Guifreye and Epstein Florida: illegal. Little St. James: illegal. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >Did Minsky know that they weren't adults? Do you have a source for that? | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop. The fact that AT BEST he knew she was a prostitute being sex trafficked makes it worse. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >Wrong. Not even by definition. If you disagree, show me a valid definition of sex trafficking that includes "flying to an island to have sex with voluntary prostitutes". | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | It is LITERALLY the definition: | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:13 | |
| schestowitz | adwn 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | > You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass". | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | > It is LITERALLY the definition: the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:13 | |
| schestowitz | tw04 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass". | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | I didn't shift my claim in the least, you attempted to imply that prostitution is legal. I pointed out that regardless of the fact you're wrong, and it isn't legal, it's disgusting. No goal post was moved, you just keep doubling down on something that is both morally reprehensible AND illegal. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | Except it doesn't. In fact the law states the exact opposite of your claim. You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here. | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/787.06 | Mar 27 00:13 |
| schestowitz | >(g) For commercial sexual activity in which any child under the age of 18 is involved commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In a prosecution under this paragraph in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person who was subject to human trafficking, the state need not prove that the | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.flsenate.gov | Chapter 787 Section 06 - 2012 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate | Mar 27 00:14 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:14 | |
| schestowitz | adwn 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | > You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | This is what's wrong with public discourse in the current cancel culture climate: One cannot even discuss facts without being accused of defending the worst kinds of criminals. Way to go! What's next, are you going to accuse me of being a potential sexual predator if I don't shut up? | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:14 | |
| schestowitz | dkersten 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | > A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Sure, but from all accounts I've seen, its not even clear that he did sleep with her. It seems likely that he did not. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | But its really not uncommon for older guys to be with young (usually 20's) women, look at older male actors. The lady in question was 17 IIRC, its not inconceivable to me that a 17 year old could be mistaken for early 20's. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | I mean, I personally still think that's wrong, but my point is that it totally does happen, without any coercion or anything like that, so that it could also happen when someone underage is mistaken for someone slightly older, especially if groomed and coerced by Epstein, doesn't seem inconceivable to me. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Doesn't make it right, but its more nuanced than "he's old therefore he should have known she was coerced" (and again, apparently he didn't actually do anything anyway). | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:14 | |
| schestowitz | wruza 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Once in a year I end up in a local strip club (non-US; never had sex or something there, but it’s not uncommon for guests to “continue elsewhere”). Spoke with many of girls, and they are usually not poor or orphaned, it’s just the way of life. “Don’t wanna to sit in office for a mediocre pay”. They are yesterday’s teenagers who sometimes earn as much as local software guys or lawyers in their 30s. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Which as a 60-year-old - you should know better | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | As such an experienced person you’d know how different people are and how many world niches exist beyond a “normal life”. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:14 | |
| schestowitz | dkersten 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | I know a number of musicians and DJ's and some women will voluntarily have sex with them, just because they have some small amount of fame. Not even money is required. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:14 | |
| schestowitz | zackees 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | > We'll set aside for a moment that he's trying to argue the only way that sexual assault can occur is if the attacker literally assaults the victim. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | So was it figurative assault or do words not have literal meaning anymore? | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:14 | |
| schestowitz | howinteresting 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Yes, the full quote with context makes it worse, not better. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:14 | |
| schestowitz | franga2000 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | Does it tho? There's definitely a difference between having sex with a 17yo when you think it's consentual without knowing someone else is forcing her in the background vs. forcing her yourself. Although I personally don't believe it, it is theoretically possible that Minsky didn't know - pointing that out, especially when very little information was available, seems at worst insensitive, but sounds mainly like a very logic-driven | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | mind taking the presumption of innocence very seriously. | Mar 27 00:14 |
| schestowitz | He also had a very good point about making the distinction between "sexual relations with a minor" and "sexual assault"/"rape" - again, I agree that both should be illegal and punushed harshly, but is having consentual sex with a 17yo really AS BAD as forcing yourself upon a person of any age? | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | As for his last point about the absurdity of the exact same thing being rape if done today, but perfectly normal if done mere days later: isn't it kinda absurd? Like, yes, there needs to be a boundary, but isn't it insane that there are only two categories: <18 is one of the worst crimes possible and >18 is perfectly legal. I don't know a better system and wouldn't even attempt to propose a better one, but surely this isn't the best | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | we can do? | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | To be clear: I don't particularly like Stallman and gladly point out his sexist and generally rude remarks and behavior when people glorify him, but this all just seems like a person only looking at the logical side of the story and ending up sounding extremely insensitive. The term "neurodivergent" would usually get thrown in here, although I'm reluctant to use it since it's far too broad and I don't have any specific information | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | about RMS. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Inappropriate and insensitive? Yes! Defending rape, as some media outlets framed it? Not even close! | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:15 | |
| schestowitz | tw04 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Minsky was an obese, balding old man. To imply that he should have expected or not had even a tiny bit of concern that an attractive young woman on a private island was throwing herself at him is ridiculous. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lomkCENpPXufPOLUkw6mzlgBljQ=... | Mar 27 00:15 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 415 @ https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lomkCENpPXufPOLUkw6mzlgBljQ= ) | Mar 27 00:15 | |
| schestowitz | If I were in my 60s and a 17 year old child was throwing themselves at me for sex, I would question what was going on. The fact it was on a private island in the middle of the Caribbean makes the feigned ignorance laughable. There's no planet on which the circumstances should have left Minsky with any doubt about what he was getting himself into. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | I'll just say this HN: shame on you. The fact there are so many people here willing to defend someone that was participating in sex trafficking is pretty disgusting. I have no time for "cancel culture" or "SJW's" but this isn't even a little bit that. There's no planet on which Minsky didn't know exactly what he was doing. To defend those actions is honestly pretty abhorrent. I hope none of you have daughters, and if you do I hope | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | you think long and hard about how you'd feel if they were in that situation. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:15 | |
| schestowitz | f1refly 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | There's no way for a person to know for sure how old another person is. Many girls at 17 have reached sexual maturity and could be 25 from their looks. Calling a 17yo a "child" is not accurate. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | there's a reason stores ask for an id when it comes to selling liquor up into women (and men as well!) 30s. I have no idea about legality about prostitution in the carrabean. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | In addition to that, many countries have laws that arent as inane as the US when it comes to sex between teenage minors and adults, for most of Europe it's between 14 and sixteen, although rules for a maximum legal partner age may further restrict this. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | I'm not saying I think Minsky was unanware, nor do I say I think his actions are right or even non repelling, but I think it's very clear where rms is coming from. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:15 | |
| schestowitz | franga2000 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Yeah, obviously I don't believe that he though she did it because she liked him. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | But there's a big spectrum of possibilities from "she freely accepted payment for it" to "she was kidnapped, tied up and shipped in a crate, then forced under threat of violence". Before we knew Epstein was a monster, her being a very highly-paid prostitute would've seemed like the more likely explanation. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | We need a term for people in between "creep" and "monster" - judging by this specific example, Minsky was in that middle. Maybe he did know exactly what was happening in the background and that would make him a monster, but I don't think that information was available at the time. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:15 | |
| schestowitz | dkersten 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | I know a bunch of musicians and DJ's and many of them are.. not good looking.. but young (legal but not by that much) women still often throw themselves at them, just because they have some perceived prestige or fame or something. It does happen more than you might like to think, without anything nefarious going on. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | > he fact there are so many people here willing to defend someone that was participating in sex trafficking is pretty disgusting. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Nobody is defending Epstein. If anything, we're arguing that the blame lies squarely with him and that he was an evil, sick man. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | I'm not even really arguing on Minsky's behalf, although given the reports I've heard that he didn't actually engage in sex and given what I said above, and the fact that she most definitely was groomed and coerced to act a certain way, its not at all a given that he's guilty. Maybe he is, but we don't know. Also, as f1refly says, age is hard to judge. I personally find it impossible to tell many ages apart. Maybe if you put a 17 | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | year old and a 25 year old side by side I could, but in isolation, many look more or less the same to me. Of course, I'm also not having sex with that age group. Still, telling what age someone is can be very hard and 17 year olds do often look older. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | What I'm arguing is that the comments RMS made were not at all bad and taken completely out of context (and outright changed!) to demonize him. | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:15 | |
| schestowitz | dkersten 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | How? The full quote says that she presented her in a way that Epstein groomed and coerced her to. That is, the blame for anything that may have happened is clearly on Epstein. How does that make it worse? | Mar 27 00:15 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | hmpiece 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Indeed, the woke are nearly always lying in cancel cases (at the very least by omission, often directly) and engaging in blatant defamation. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Many cases could be taken to court, even in the USA with its relaxed defamation laws. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | veridies 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Then why aren't they, more often? | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | hulahoof 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Most people probably can't afford to unless it's a slam dunk | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | higerordermap 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | There's a reason wokeism is fastest growing religion in the world. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | inglor_cz 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | If they keep eating one another so publicly and randomly, they won't achieve the necessary internal stability. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Successful authoritarian movements have a clear set of rules that make you safe as a member, and only turn to internal purges once they destroyed any external opposition. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | dataduck 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Are you saying that they haven't destroyed all (effective) external opposition? | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | inglor_cz 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Locally (universities), maybe. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | As far as the entire USA or perhaps the entire Western world goes, no. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | koonsolo 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | What is the reason? | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:16 | |
| schestowitz | ta8645 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | I believe it is natural human social behaviour that is simply emerging again after a long quiet period after the dissolution of organized religion. IMO, all the horrible mob mentality and violence that used to be blamed on religion, really didn't have much to do with religion or its associated belief system.. rather it's just ugly group and social dynamics that reemerge the moment people come back together under any umbrella. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | Turning away from religion wasn't the achievement we estimated it to be, much of the problematic elements associated with it persist unabated. | Mar 27 00:16 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:17 | |
| schestowitz | 8fGTBjZxBcHq 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Even non-religious people have been saying for _generations_ that mass turning away from religion without redirecting the genuine human needs it fulfills was going to be trouble. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:17 | |
| schestowitz | gwd 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | If someone is consistently failing to do the necessary part of a job, then it doesn't matter why they are consistently failing; they must be asked to step down and not do that job. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | One of the responsibilities of anyone in power is to avoid emboldening sexual predators and silencing victims. Anyone in power who does that should be called out; and anyone who continues to do it after being called out should be asked to step down. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Let me start by saying that Stallman's words defending Minsky have absolutely been misinterpreted. He did not say that Guiffre was "entirely willing". And given that the age of consent in most of Europe is 16 or below [1], I think it's hypocritical for so many people to be outraged about Stallman saying maybe 17 isn't so bad. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Nonetheless, his defense of Minsky is still problematic. Why? Because in the hypothetical situation he described, Minsky had sex with Guiffre even though he should have seen red flags. (Don't get distracted here by arguing that Minsky did see red flags and didn't actually sleep with Guiffre. That's not the point: Stallman still defended Minsky as though he had.) By defending Minsky, he was indicating to all future sexual predators, | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | I will try to find excuses to defend your bad behavior"; and to all future sexual victims, "There is no point in coming forward; I will try to excuse the person who did this to you." | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Now maybe Stallman didn't realize that's what he was doing; and maybe the reason he didn't realize it was because his brain is wired differently, which makes it difficult for him somehow. If so, we can cut him some slack personally; but it doesn't change the fact that it's harmful to have him in leadership. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe | Mar 27 00:17 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-en.wikipedia.org | Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia | Mar 27 00:17 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:17 | |
| schestowitz | elric 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Age of consent is seriously tricky business. And I think that's in part because it's really two things which are muddled together: young people having sex with each other; and older people having sex with younger people. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | It is absolutely fine for young people to consent to having sex with other young people. A minimum age makes little sense there. Very young kids do stupid things all the time, including touching each other's genitals. By some definitions, if two toddlers "play doctor", the older one is somehow a criminal. That seems insane. I remember being 14 and doing sexual things with my 15 year old girlfriend. At that point we were both falling | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | foul of the law. But once she turned 16, she was suddenly a pedophile and a stutory rapist because I was only 15? Again, that seems insane. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Then there's the issue of older people having sexual relations with younger people. This is where things become a lot more complex. It's pretty clear that it's inappropriate when authority figures are involved (e.g. teacher and underaged student). But then that can be inappropriate regardless of age. I can't imagine 14 year old me having been sexually interested in anyone over the age of 30, but that seems entirely arbitrary and | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | subject to taste. I can certainly imagine 14 year old me thinking that my sex life wasn't anyone else's business. Some 14 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Yet the former somehow can't consent to anything, but the latter can consent to sex with anyone aged 16-120+? | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Age is a pretty good proxy for maturity on a population scale, but it's a really lousy proxy on an individual level. Perhaps we, as a society, would do well to remember that individual differences can be huge, and that consent is more important than merely the age. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:17 | |
| schestowitz | gwd 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | > Age of consent is seriously tricky business. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Right, and I carefully worded what I said about it to try to avoid expressing any opinion on the subject. :-) | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:17 | |
| schestowitz | elric 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Oh I wasn't trying to refute your statement or anything, I was merely trying to expand on the whole Age Of Consent business. Sorry if this came across in that way. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:17 | |
| schestowitz | sseagull 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | > But once she turned 16, she was suddenly a pedophile and a stutory rapist because I was only 15? Again, that seems insane. | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | After some high-profile cases (usually involving minorities and disapproving parents), some states in the US have corrected this via "Romeo and Juliet Laws". | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | (Had to look into this due to having a bit younger girlfriend right around that age) | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Julie... | Mar 27 00:17 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-en.wikipedia.org | Statutory rape - Wikipedia | Mar 27 00:17 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:17 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:18 | |
| schestowitz | gwd 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | I had the misfortune to let my self get sucked into an argument which required me to comb through the California laws on this topic. The laws seemed to me to be a reasonable attempt at a balance. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:18 | |
| schestowitz | PoignardAzur 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | > Nonetheless, his defense of Minsky is still problematic. Why? Because in the hypothetical situation he described, Minsky had sex with Guiffre even though he should have seen red flags. [...] By defending Minsky, he was indicating to all future sexual predators, "I will try to find excuses to defend your bad behavior"; and to all future sexual victims, "There is no point in coming forward; I will try to excuse the person who did | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | this to you." | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Yes, exactly. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Pointing out extenuating circumstances of someone's (alleged) bad behavior is necessary and useful. But it should always come second to determining what the person should have done instead, and holding them accountable to push society towards a place where everybody has the responsible behavior by default. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | The attitude of "if there's any plausible reason person X might have thought they weren't doing anything wrong, we shouldn't punish them" gives the exact wrong incentives. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:18 | |
| schestowitz | wvh 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Well put. This is in my eyes the biggest problem with the whole "politically correct" and identity politics movement: it assume the worst of people digressing a chosen subjective universal ideal, in the process singling out lots of individuals despite the self-proclaimed goal of diversity and acceptance. It's pretty warped to demand respect for your own personal difficulties and particularities while bashing others for theirs, or in | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | other words, demand to be treated with respect as a human being while failing to see the human in others. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:18 | |
| schestowitz | ilyaeck 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | I think this entire moralistic debate is misguided. Granted, if RMS was indeed autistic, all the more reason to "judge" him more charitably. But even if he wasn't, its doesn't mean that his cancellation - based on things he might have said and, lest we forget, a smear campaign by an internet mob ignited by false accusations - was justified. RMS was one of the founders of the Free Software Movement - that is why he occupied that post | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | at the FSF. Not because he was the epitome of high Christian morals - why would/should that be a job requirement in his line of work? Do you want righteous activists also demand they be "nice guys"? If so, time to start cancelling the very champions of cancel culture as few of them are "nice people" (which, btw, is bound to happen if history is any indication). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too... | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:18 | |
| schestowitz | karaterobot 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Just wondering what the source is for Stallman being autistic? I see people saying he's autistic, and I even see people saying he has called himself "borderline autistic", but that's not quite the same thing as a diagnosis. I don't see a reliable source making that claim; even Wikipedia says nothing about it (except a backstage talk item about there not being any source on the claim). | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | I admit, the circumstantial evidence is, uhh, indicative, but I don't see it being a matter of public record. Then again, I only did six and a half minutes of internet research, though, and I could be wrong, thus the question mark. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:18 | |
| schestowitz | skissane 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | > Just wondering what the source is for Stallman being autistic? I see people saying he's autistic, and I even see people saying he has called himself "borderline autistic", but that's not quite the same thing as a diagnosis | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | If you understand the concept of the broad autism phenotype (BAP), it is hard not to see it in his behaviour. He obviously has autistic traits. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Now, is it BAP (sub-clinical ASD) or is it clinical ASD? Nobody can answer that unless they are actually a qualified diagnostician (psychiatrist/psychologist/etc) personally evaluating him. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | But I'm not sure how much that matters. The boundary between BAP and ASD is vague, it varies from clinician to clinician and is changing over time. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | If you choose to view things dimensionally [0] rather than categorically, you have "super-neurotypical" people at one extreme, you have "severe ASD" at the other [1]. And somewhere in between the two, you draw a line (the diagnostic cutoff), and say people on one side of the line have "mild ASD" and people on the other side of the line don't have ASD. And the people who are on the "neurotypical" side of the line, but still close to | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | it rather than far away, that's BAP. | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | And I think the point is that RMS obviously is somewhere near that line, whichever side of it he may belong on. (And as I said, the line doesn't have a single fixed location anyway, he might be on one side given some clinicians' ways of drawing it and on the other given others'.) | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | [0] I've drawn an oversimplified one-dimensional model here. In reality ASD is a multidimensional construct. But, treating it one-dimensionally is a simplification which aids in explanation | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | [1] I know some people don't like phrases like "mild ASD" or "severe ASD" (or their close relatives "low functioning" and "high functioning"), but how else do you explain the difference between someone diagnosed with "ASD Level 1 / Level 1 without intellectual or language impairment" and someone else who is diagnosed with "ASD Level 3 / Level 3 with intellectual impairment and language impairment"? | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:18 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:18 | |
| schestowitz | NationalPark 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | If the line is that blurry, when do we begin holding people accountable for being apparently deliberately inconsiderate and rude? Most people don't have a problem with social cues, are we to quietly accept abuse and harassment even from people who have been told they're hurting others and don't change? | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:19 | |
| schestowitz | unanswered 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Do we quietly accept not being listened to by the deaf? Do we quietly accept our visual cues not being correctly interpreted by the blind? Do we quietly accept our grandmothers forgetting our birthdays? Do we quietly accept service animals (well I suppose a lot of people don't)? | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | But it's okay to treat autistic people as less than human because they are not a politically powerful group. You learn a lot about people from how they treat politically disadvantaged, and we have learned a lot about you. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:19 | |
| schestowitz | DaiPlusPlus 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Given what the lengths he went through to create GNU in the 1970s, I’m willing to believe it. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:19 | |
| schestowitz | ddingus 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Definitely above the mean drive, resolve, conviction. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | There are, at any given time, few people who walk this world rating so highly on these scales. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:19 | |
| schestowitz | compiler-guy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | It wasn’t just a few statements. It is a constellation of issues that make him very hard to interact with. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:19 | |
| schestowitz | Mediterraneo10 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Again, maybe it was "hard to interact with him" only if one was unwilling to accept his difference? | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:19 | |
| schestowitz | Grimm1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Just because you accept someone's differences doesn't change that they may, to you, be difficult to interact with. It's saying this is potentially more difficult but because they're a human being deserving of treatment just like you want to be treated, you try to overcome the difficulty. Co-existing with people is difficult in the best of circumstances, pretending like our differences don't exist won't make that any easier. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | I also don't really know all that much about Richard Stallman I just don't like the idea that if you accept someone for themselves all the difficulties of social cohesion magically disappear because it's untrue. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:19 | |
| schestowitz | YorickPeterse 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | This is just the same excuse as the age old "Boys will be boys" excuse. Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep and general unpleasant person to work with, without there eventually being repercussions. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:19 | |
| schestowitz | serf 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | not really. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | 'boys will be boys' doesn't assert that 'boys' get away with whatever they want because they are neuro-divergent, it asserts that gender allows for additional privilege. | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | >Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep | Mar 27 00:19 |
| schestowitz | For the sake of argument : what if that person has neurological quirks which disallow 'non-creep' , to use your parlance, behavior? | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | To take the example even further , it's illegal with fine attached to say curse words on certain beaches in the United States. Is it reasonable to fine an individual with Tourette Syndrome when they scream expletives on such a beach? | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:20 | |
| schestowitz | patmcc 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Take it to the extreme - murder is illegal; if you kill someone because you're a bad bad person, we jail you. If you kill someone because you're "insane"...we still remove you from society, but you just get treatment instead of punishment. We still consider the act of killing someone unacceptable. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | If swearing at the beach is unacceptable, full stop, then it's unacceptable for a person with or without TS. (Personally, that sounds like a dumb law, but what do I know) | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:20 | |
| schestowitz | linspace 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | I think there is a clear distinction. People have a right to live above insane persons freedom. TS people have a right to freedom above people's inconvenience to hear curse words. Law balances these kind of things all the time, that's why we don't slave people when they own money anymore, to put one of many examples. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:20 | |
| schestowitz | buisi 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | They're removed from society to protect society from them. However, depriving someone of their liberty is a pretty extreme step to take, and not one which should be taken lightly. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | A TS individual for instance may be annoying, however they aren't causing actual physical harm to other people, in the same sense that a murderer might be. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:20 | |
| schestowitz | sellyme 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Weirdly I think taking it to the extreme made your point somewhat worse. Something like theft versus kleptomania is just a punishment versus treatment scenario, but I would definitely perceive someone who commits an unprovoked murder to inherently require psychological treatment, even if they don't meet the requirements of an insanity defence. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | But I do agree with the idea that letting someone off the hook for all consequences on account of a mental illness isn't viable. That makes things a lot harder for neurodivergent individuals, but that's why we should have extensive support programs and provide resources to help them cope with the expectations of general society. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | It's a tricky problem, because to meaningfully distinguish between someone who is mentally incapable of following a law and someone who is capable of doing so but systematically elects not to, you are functionally deciding which humans do and do not have free will on an individual basis. I think most people would believe that either all humans have free will, or no humans have free will, not somewhere in between, so this is a | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | scenario that is uncomfortable to pretty much everyone. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:20 | |
| schestowitz | kodah 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | "Boys will be boys" was usually said when boys were doing something asinine. I've never heard someone frame it the way you did. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:20 | |
| schestowitz | metalforever 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | I am not sure if you or a lot of the posters here really understand autism . This is someone with an extremely low emotional iq and an extreme emotional difference. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:20 | |
| schestowitz | geofft 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Maybe someone with an extremely low emotional IQ should not be the public face of an activism organization whose primariy job is to persuade the public, then? | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | A lot of the internal-to-the-free-software-community frustration with RMS was how he had basically stopped contributing code to GNU but still felt entitled to overrule maintainers. He is a talented coder! He could have continued to use his skills to write free software and delegated the work of being the face of the movement to others. He could have listened when people suggested to him that he'd be of greater service to the | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | movement that way. He didn't do any of that. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Not everyone is ideally suited for every role. That's part of being understanding of neurodivergence. | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:20 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:20 | |
| schestowitz | watwut 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Sounds like stereotypical manager that used to code, stopped doing and slowly forgot how it is done, but still think it is good idea to talk about it constantly. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | HideousKojima 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | "Boys will be boys" was (and still is) a phrase used by most to describe to idiotic stuff boys do like firing roman candles at each other or brothers wrestling with each other and breaking a lamp in the process. How it got twisted to mean that people using it are excusing sexual harassment and assault is beyond me, other than being an obvious attempt by the woke to subvert a common phrase for political purposes. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | commandlinefan 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | > a creep and general unpleasant person to work with | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | In my experience, the same sort of people who crusade against the Richard Stallmans of the world are the creepiest and by far most unpleasant to work with, yet they themselves are constantly being celebrated, uplifted, and raised into positions of real power and real harm. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | JohnHaugeland 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | [flagged] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | SilverRed 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Thats a serious misrepresentation of his words. He once had a page on his site saying that he did not think it was harmful if voluntary (eg, consent between people of similar ages but one being over age) | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | He has since removed the post and stated that its more complex than he initially thought. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | No, his post[0] didn't say anything about people of a similar age. His post linked to an article about a Dutch group forming a pro-pedophilia political party that wanted to drop the age of consent to 12, and then eliminate it entirely. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | RMS did not (as the parent said) directly argue that pedophilia is ok, but I don't see much distinction between directly arguing that vs. linking to something that does argue that, and him saying he agrees with it. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | [0] Not removed; https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... | Mar 27 00:21 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.stallman.org | 2006: May - August Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | roenxi 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | He didn't say he agreed with it. He said "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children." | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | There is a wide gap between being sceptical of a claim, and supporting its negation. Anyone who is applying critical thinking will occasionally be sceptical of things which are obviously correct. People were sceptical of the wheel. People have been sceptical of money since the creation of money. People were sceptical of soap. Many software engineers appear to still be sceptical of soap. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | The age of consent in, eg, Brazil is 12 [0] so it isn't like the opening salvo of that paedophile party is so radical an idea as to be unthinkable. Stallman linking it is not an extremist position. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_of_co... | Mar 27 00:21 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_of_co ) | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | He dismissed opposition to it as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing". And he said it's "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | The article says what most people would call the age of consent in Brazil is 14. | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...() | Mar 27 00:21 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallman.org | 2003: May - August Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:21 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | roenxi 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Stallman routinely misjudging what other people are thinking and why they are acting is not a matter of debate. Everyone agrees that he is bad at that. Terrible, even. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:22 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Mocking anyone who opposes something goes beyond skepticism. So does saying people oppose something "only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness". | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:22 | |
| schestowitz | roenxi 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | If you want that to be the standard you can try to uphold it but you'll have little luck. These are political opinions and we just finished the Trump presidency. Political scepticism is frequently uncivil. There is a real and difficult skill to telling someone they might be wrong politely and Stallman does not have it. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Furthermore Stallman isn't mocking them. He is making a claim about why people are acting the way they are and is probably serious in his claim. He's also probably wrong, but being wrong and mocking someone are different things. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | The full quote you're referencing is about a long list of things including "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia". Most of that is disgusting, but not anyone's business. I vehemently disagree with the idea that prostitution should be illegal, especially if my money is being wasted prosecuting it. Talk about bailing out a sinking ship trying to stop | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | prostitution. Stallman was also probably wrong on pedophilia - even then depending on what he meant, he didn't flesh that one out very much. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | It isn't exactly a damning case against the man when there is one questionable (and vague) addition in an otherwise non-notable list midway down a very long page of random political opinions. Stuff like that being a major line of attack is why he is back on the board of the FSF - the attacks are over trivialities, especially compared to the remarkable success and prescience of his life's work. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:22 | |
| schestowitz | krapp 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | No. He made multiple statements on his website supporting sexual relationships between adults and minors. There was not simply the one statement he made, then retracted. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Here is a comment I made two years ago pointing them all out as well as the context by which any reasonable person would consider them to be in support of pedophilia. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | And while it is true that he made a single comment after the controversy retracting his beliefs, almost as if he were forced to do so to try to put out the PR trashfire that he started, that does not mean OP's comment misrepresents RMS's views. It is correct that RMS was a stalwart, passionate advocate for pedophilia for decades. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006 | Mar 27 00:22 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-news.ycombinator.com | >All those references from stallman.org seems like perfectly reasonable opinions... | Hacker News | Mar 27 00:22 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:22 | |
| schestowitz | visitor1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | No, you are using exaggerations to try to justify an invalid point. Stallman is a scientist, has an inquisitive mind, will question the world, the laws, the establishment, has traveled the world. Petty minds have never understood the language of great minds. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:22 | |
| schestowitz | JohnHaugeland 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Hello, account that appears to have been created just to write this comment. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | . | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | > Stallman is a scientist | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | False | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | . | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | > has an inquisitive mind, will question the world, the laws | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Yeah, like pedophilia laws. This is not actually desirable in all cases. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | . | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | > Petty minds have never understood the language of great minds. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Insulting people won't make your point. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | All of Stallman's claims to fame are software that other, more serious CS people wrote. All of them. | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:22 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | krapp 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Yeah..no. Stallman's language is as plain and direct as his intent. We're not talking about Richard Feynman lecturing on quantum electrodynamics at a physics symposium. Even a cursory reading of Stallman's blog posts on the subject make it clear that he wasn't simply questioning the status quo as some intellectual exercise or testing any hypothesis as a scientist, he was emotionally invested. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | He would see stories in the media about pedophiles being arrested and would comment on those stories, expressing outrage that society considered sexual relationships between grown men and children to be a taboo or a crime. He believed it was possible for children to give consent for sexual relationships (a view that, to be fair, he retracted, and to be completely fair, he retracted in the least convincing way possible,) and that | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | children should be trained for sexual relationships by adults. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | And you've lost the plot - you made Stallman out to be a brilliant scholar, intellectual and world travelling bon-vivant, which just makes him look pathetic in hindsight given what happened to him. But the narrative is that he's a fragile, socially awkward autistic who barely understands basic human behavior and can't operate in the cold, cruel world, and who shouldn't be held accountable for his words or behavior. Isn't that right? | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Isn't that supposed to be where the cult of Stallman is circling the wagons? | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Please try better with your next troll account. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | stonogo 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | He did not remove the post, it's here: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... | Mar 27 00:23 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.stallman.org | 2006: May - August Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | And he didn't change his mind for over a decade, until he got in trouble for defending Marvin Minsky. I'm still not convinced his "updated opinion" would have happened without the scrutiny brought by the Epstein case. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | PurpleFoxy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Looks like he moved it to the archive section and dated it 2006 to show it is a very outdated view. Stallman is a very honest person and won’t try to hide the past. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | This comment used to be on one of the main info pages of the site. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | klyrs 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | That quote has been at that url since 2006 | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | https://web.archive.org/web/20060821211348/https://www.stall... | Mar 27 00:23 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://web.archive.org/web/20060821211348/https://www.stall ) | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | hda2 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Did he redact his statement or not? A simple Yes or No will suffice. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | fooker 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Yes or No answers are only relevant when you admit yourself to be incapable of nuanced thought. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Alternatively : “Have you stopped beating your wife?” A simple yes or no answer will suffice. :) | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | anoonmoose 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Boo, word games. His question has a yes or no answer, yours does not. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:23 | |
| schestowitz | fooker 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | You seem to have missed the point.. | Mar 27 00:23 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | hda2 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | As have you, unfortunately. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | moistbar 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | No, he didn't. He defended a dead person from accusations of pedophilia and had quotes from it taken tremendously out of context. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | stephenr 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Yes, he did, multiple times. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216 | Mar 27 00:24 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-news.ycombinator.com | Richard Stallman about defending pedophilia: "The nominee is quoted as saying t... | Hacker News | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | spurgu 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | I find it refreshing to see someone willing to talk and think about these taboo kind of subjects. Myself I think it (sexual interaction) boils down to mutual consent, but there's obviously an age where a person cannot grasp the scope of what they're consenting to. And necrophilia fails this definition since consent is impossible (unless written in a will). | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | And now having looked into what he was actually accused of, of trying to imply that a sexual "assault" didn't necessarily happen, it's just strengthening my view that this "wokeness" is getting way out of hand in today's society. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | stephenr 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | The law literally is about age of consent. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | As a society we deem young people too immature to make important decisions for themselves. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Nothing about calling him on his ridiculous views is related to "wokeness". One guy saying "hey maybe fucking kids isn't bad" is not in any way related to social injustice - society in general says that fucking kids is bad. Edit: unless you agree with his claims - then I guess you might see it as "social injustice". | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | This is just a weirdo saying weird shit, and then other people (you) trying to latch onto the new version of "don't blame me, back in my day it was OK". | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | spurgu 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | You are literally projecting your own views on this, which is exactly the problem here. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | The law? In which country? Who is correct? Is 18 mature but 17 isn't? Or 15? There is no hard coded rule/value, only arbitrary laws trying to generalize. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | And the rest of your post is not even worth dissecting (even though it would be moderately amusing), you're clearly missing both what I and RMS are trying to say. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | varajelle 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Not only young people but also adult who would want to take some kind of drugs, or who would like to get into, god forbid, homosexual acts. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Now, homosexuality has been allowed everywhere in the US for a decade or so. It wouldn't have been if it was not appropriate to talk about it. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Richard Stallman was, for my understanding, just daring to ask questions, and debating over a sensitive topic, and he got blamed for it. | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:24 | |
| schestowitz | dataduck 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:24 |
| schestowitz | Surely thinking you've got the right to police and punish other people for their views is wokeness, regardless of how ridiculous said views are? | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | visitor1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | "Sexual assault" is an abused term, it does not make justice to real victims or real assault. Here's Nadine Strossen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadine_Strossen) on the subject: | Mar 27 00:25 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-en.wikipedia.org | Nadine Strossen - Wikipedia | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | "So we see the term sexual assault and sexual harrassment used for example, when a guy asks a woman out on a date and she doesn’t find that an appealing invitation. Maybe he used poor judgement in asking her out, maybe he didn’t, but in any case that is NOT sexual assault or harassment. To call it that is to really demean the huge horror and violence and predation that does exist when you are talking about violent sexual assault | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | People use the term sexual assault / sexual harassment to refer to any comment about gender or sexuality issues that they disagree with or a joke that might not be in the best taste, again is that to be commended? No! But to condemn it and equate it with a violent sexual assault again is really denying and demeaning the actual suffering that people who are victims of sexual assault endure. It trivializes the serious infractions | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | that are committed by people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. So that is one point that he [Stallman] made that I think is very important that I strongly agree with." https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | henearkr 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | [edit: I got the context wrong, see children comments] | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | The commented pedophilia was the allegated one of Marvin Minsky with a 17 yo girl, whose coercion (by Epstein) into sexual acts was maybe (probably, in the words of RMS) not made clear to Minsky (nor the age). | Mar 27 00:25 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.wetheweb.org | #Cancel We The Web? | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | I precise, because 17 yo is a quite mature age for sexual activity (and more so for a girl than for a boy, because the sexual maturity of the body happens earlier), and the context of being presented by Epstein may make it not obvious that there was slavery. | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | So, even if I do not condone, I can see where the position of RMS comes from. | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | dragonwriter 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | > The commented pedophilia was the allegated one of Marvin Minsky with a 17 yo girl, | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | No, it was a comment in response to a group of Dutch pedophiles forming a political party with the stated goal of first reducing the age of consent for sex to 12, and eventually eliminating it altogether. | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | What Minsky was accused of is sex with someone post-pubescent but below the age of consent, which isn't an act indicative of pedophilia, so defending pedophilia to defend Minsky would be gratuitous in the same way that defending allowing the Voting Rights Act to expire by saying the practice of slavery in the US wasn't actually harmful to those enslaved would be. | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | prepend 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | > someone post-pubescent but below the age of consent | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | I think an adult having sexual acts with a minor is not good because of the power imbalance. At the time of the act, the age of consent in that jurisdiction was 16 [0], so the person was not below the age of consent. It has since been changed to 18. | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | I’m not agreeing with having a low age of consent, but since that’s a legal term, I’m posting this just to help you correctly state since this whole episode seems to be fraught with the need for precision. | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | [0] Minsky was in USVI, I believe, at the time was 16, now 18. Also oddly, the typical age of consent in the US is 16. https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/united-states | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:25 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.ageofconsent.net | United States Age of Consent & Statutory Rape Laws | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | "Crossing state lines to have sexual relations invokes federal law. The federal age of consent is 18."[1] | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://www.cwsdefense.com/blog/2020/january/state-lines-and... | Mar 27 00:25 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.cwsdefense.com | Newport Beach Criminal Law Attorneys | January 2020 Blog | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:25 | |
| schestowitz | prepend 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | Again, I think any sex with a minor is unethical, regardless of law. But in this particulars of Minsky’s situation he didn’t cross state lines for purposes of sex, he crossed for other purposes. IANAL, but I think this would be important for determining if age of consent was violated. If there was some sign of intent that Minsky planned on traveling just to sex this person then I think the reference you provided applies. But if | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | he went for genuine other purposes then it would not. | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | Arguing for purposes of nerd accuracy (or whatever you call it) not based on any endorsement of circumventing age of consent laws or abusing individuals. | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:25 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:26 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | I think you're reading too much into informal phrasing. And a reasonable person would suspect prostitution or coercion. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:26 | |
| schestowitz | prepend 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | I was commenting on the law relates to traveling for purposes of applying age of consent. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | If someone is traveling for other purposes and does have sex, then the local age is applied, not federal. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | The reasonable person test is sure to be resolved by court. But given their example, if someone is in Vegas and has sex with someone then the Nevada age of consent applies. But not if someone goes to Vegas with someone. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | If I remember the details of the Minsky scenario, it’s that Minsky was visiting Epstein for some retreat and had (or was accused, I don’t remember) of sexing a 17year old (who was basically human trafficked and forced to sex people by Epstein). So that would seem like the purpose of travel was not sex, so local age of consent would apply. But a court could decide. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Of course, an admiral goal is to never be involved in any such scenario and I think a good heuristic is if one has to ask oneself if sex could be illegal, then one should not have that sex. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:26 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | > But given their example, if someone is in Vegas and has sex with someone then the Nevada age of consent applies. But not if someone goes to Vegas with someone. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | A witness testified Giuffre was on the plane with Minsky. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:26 | |
| schestowitz | visitor1 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | <quote>It has since been changed to 18.</quote> | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Could you provide some source as to when the age of consent was changed from 16 to 18 in the US Virgin Island? That would be really illuminating! A link to the Act, an article, something? I haven't been able to find any. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:26 | |
| schestowitz | henearkr 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Oh, thanks for pointing out. You're right, so the Minsky case does not belong to the controversy around RMS positions. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | I did not know of this Dutch group, and I think their purpose is wrong. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:26 | |
| schestowitz | dragonwriter 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | I think he also specifically defended Minsky, IIRC, onn the grounds that it wasn't clear Minsky had any reason to suspect that it wasn't voluntary and that, given that, did nothing morally wrong (if you think sex with prepubescent children can be voluntary and if so not harmful, obviously it's unsurprising to think the same thing for post-pubescent near-adults); his defense of Minsky is still controversial (people don't generally | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | think that the age of consent is a bad idea, especially when there is a also a wide gulf in ages between parties), but not as extreme as his separate defense of pedophilic sex generally. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:26 | |
| schestowitz | lawnchair_larry 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun them as well. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:26 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" as a suggestion that there are circumstances under which paedophilia is OK. Suggesting that someone doing so is willfully, blatantly lying seems like an unsupported claim. | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:26 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:27 | |
| schestowitz | phkahler 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | There is another sentence after the one you quote which takes the edge off it. Dropping that part could be construed as willfully taking his words out of context to makes them sound worse. IMHO taken as a whole I think it says more about his lack of understanding than him endorsing anything. But as you say, that's not blatant lying. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:27 | |
| schestowitz | davidcbc 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | > The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | This doesn't take the edge off, it makes it sound worse | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:27 | |
| schestowitz | gizmo686 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | How does it make it sound worse? | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | As I read it, he is saying: | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Original quote: "I am skeptical about <widely believed thing". | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Added context: "because <the arguments people present to not actually address the issue in question>" | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | The added context moves him even further away from saying anything about pedophilia itself, and further into saying stuff about other people who are saying something about pedophilia. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:27 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | If the "widely believed thing" he was disagreeing with was that children are often forced into pedophilia, that might be defensible. Horribly naive, but maybe defensible. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | But that's not it; he does seem to accept that children are forced into pedophilia in at least some instances, but somehow believes that those are few enough, and "consensual pedophilia" (which, no, that's not a thing) is common enough that we should just throw out age-of-consent laws (he links to an article about a Dutch group who wants to do just that). | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | But... no. He's just absolutely wrong here. And the swipe at allegedly-hysterical parents in the second half of the sentence just illustrate how ignorant he is. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:27 | |
| schestowitz | davidcbc 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | He's saying parents are just blowing pedophilia out of proportion. How is that an improvement? | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:27 | |
| schestowitz | adrian_b 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | The problem is that pedophilia has a much wider meaning in the USA that in many other parts of the world. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | I do not believe that any sane human being believes that pedophilia in the sense understood by himself/herself is OK in any circumstances. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Nevertheless there are millions or billions of humans who do not consider as pedophilia some acts that are considered pedophilia in USA, therefore they consider that those acts are OK, because they are not pedophilia. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | For example, until recently few countries had such a high age of consent as USA. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Where I was born and I have grown, the age of consent was 14. So any consensual activity with someone e.g. 17-year old was considered OK and not pedophilia. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | I have certainly never seen or heard any undesirable consequence of this lower age of consent, so I do not believe that there exists any proof that the belief of the US citizens, that consensual sexual relations with someone under the age of 18 are pedophilia, is right. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | As another example, until recently, the consensual relations between an adolescent boy (i.e. older than 14) and a mature woman, unlike the opposite sex case, were never considered as pedophilia in most of the world, unlike in USA were there were many highly-publicized convictions in such cases. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | I have still not seen any valid argument about why this American belief, that such relations must be considered pedophilia, is correct. | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:27 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:27 |
| schestowitz | Stallman was talking about actual children.[1] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(... | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | visitor1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | [flagged] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | How is that relevant to what Stallman meant when he talked about pedophilia? | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | lawnchair_larry 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Except that it’s literally not a suggestion that there are circumstances under which it is ok. You’re not stupid. You know what he meant. And you know what he meant wasn’t what he is being smeared as. | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Under what circumstances is something that does no harm not ok? | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | lawnchair_larry 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Feel free to quote or link the passage where he says it does no harm. If you cannot find one, you’ll issue an apology to RMS for falsely defaming him, right? That’s what it’s called when you claim someone says pedophilia does no harm when they didn’t say that. | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" - if it's not harming children, who or what is it harming? | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | And if you can't make a coherent argument on that point, maybe you should apologise for suggesting that JohnHaugeland was "willfully, blatantly lying"? | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | lawnchair_larry 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | As you’re aware, this isn’t a claim that pedophilia does no harm. Keep looking. | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Who or what is harmed in this case if not the children? | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:28 | |
| schestowitz | dempseye 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:28 |
| schestowitz | Where did he say that? | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | This is probably a reference to https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html: | Mar 27 00:29 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallman.org | 2006: March - June Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | henearkr 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | The context is the one of the accusation of Marvin Minsky, in a case involving Epstein. The victim was a 17 yo girl, and "if" the condition of sexual slavery of the victim was not made clear, it could have been misunderstood as a voluntary act, and I would indeed understand that a voluntary sexual act with a 17 yo girl does not systematically lead to harm. | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | What was criticized by RMS was the overly broad generalizations of the harmfulness. | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | > The context is the one of the accusation of Marvin Minsky, in a case involving Epstein | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | No, the context is the totality of RMS's behaviour over the years, as was made clear by a parent comment: | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | "A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years." | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | henearkr 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Right, the context was earlier (2006). | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | I don't know all of the accumulated missteps he did, so of course I will refrain from concluding. At least, the one about the over-generalization seems legit (with the example of a willing 17 yo). | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | ogurechny 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Please stop. You are using the modern “inexcusable” accusation that only serves as a tool to shut others' mouths and bend them to submission to authority (“Communist”, “Jew”, or “enemy of the people”). | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... | Mar 27 00:29 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp ) | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | scythe 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | It sucks that this couldn't have been addressed earlier. Accounts generally indicate that people were aware. | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Unfortunately, when someone is in a position of power, often the only recourse is the sword of Damocles. This is especially difficult for people who become relevant by leading a movement rather than rising through the ranks. But that means that there is a natural tension between social mobility and a culture of accountability, which is likely the source of a lot of dissatisfaction in society. | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | bsder 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Okay. I think your statements indicate you are a jerk. | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Do I now suddenly get to punish you? Do I get to go to your boss and try to get him to fire you? | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | See the problem? | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:29 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:29 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | I mean... yes? That's exactly what you do? The boss is presumably a rational human being and can decide if your complaints have merit or not. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | If you personally are in a position to punish someone who you believe is a jerk, then yeah, you'll probably punish them, because that's just how social interaction works. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:30 | |
| schestowitz | nske 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | I think in practice the boss would primarily evaluate the negative impact (or the risk) of the public reaction against the company/organisation versus the positive impact the controversial person brings through the merits of their work. It would be a business decision. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:30 | |
| schestowitz | young_unixer 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | I don't even think we should be "advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people". | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | We should just stop using our prejudice to misinterpret statements, and we should stop putting words in other people's mouths. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Autistic people (who usually talk in a very literal way) would be benefited by this change as a byproduct, but this principle should apply to everyone, not only to neurodivergent people. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Is what the person said technically correct? Yes or no. That's all that matters. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:30 | |
| schestowitz | wozer 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, because there are some neurotypical people who have mastered the art to say technically correct things but implying different, often awful things. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:30 | |
| schestowitz | gameman144 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | But isn't that a core part of the problem? If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? It seems like a constant game of walking on eggshells if you're trying to pre-emptively prevent anyone from concluding that you were trying to imply something bad. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversations and interviews: if the other party thinks you're implying something, they can follow-up and ask whether you are indeed intending to. Without two-way discourse, taking someone's statements in good faith seems like the lesser of two evils. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:30 | |
| schestowitz | herbstein 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | > If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person? | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuum. However, surely patterns of behavior and the larger context of the words being said should play a role in our interpretation of the words said? | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Otherwise you end up with things that, read hyper-literally, are innocuous while being completely heinous in context. "Exterminate the Vermin" said by an exterminator is very different to it being said by a German in 1944. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:30 | |
| schestowitz | gameman144 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Totally agree on all points. If someone said "exterminate the vermin", though, the ideal follow-up would be to ask "who or what are the vermin? And what do you mean by 'exterminate'?" | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Weasel words are always going to dog whistle, but if you think that someone is implying something, the best scenario is to get them to explicitly agree or disagree with that statement. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Definitely not applicable in all cases, but if a person explicitly says "I did not mean to imply X, and I disagree with X", then it seems a good rule of thumb to believe that they do in fact disagree with X. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:30 | |
| schestowitz | PaulRobinson 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | In this specific case, no, what he said was not logically ("technically"), correct. | Mar 27 00:30 |
| schestowitz | The age of consent is so named because it is widely accepted that no minor is able to present themselves to an adult as "willing" to engage in sex. After much debate over hundreds of years and with inputs from researchers in child psychology, people below the age of consent are judged by society to not have the emotional maturity to make those decisions, irresepective of their physical maturity. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Now, a contrarian might argue that the age is wrong - and indeed, it does vary country by country, and often when the couple are very close in age it is accepted there was not a typical case of sexual exploitation by the elder party - but in the case RMS was referring to, Minsky was likely aware of the age of consent and the reason for its existence AND that his own behaviour was extremely likely to be exploitative and abusive no | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | matter what the child said, so RMS's argument is logically absurd. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Minsky's behaviour can not be explained as "acceptable", because the law is not widely considered unjust in this situation other than by pedophiles. RMS' argument can logically be judged as being advocative of a pedophile's behaviour. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Therefore RMS' arguments are technically - i.e. logically - incorrect, as well as being deeply offensive to a large number of people. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | He has since accepted this himself. He does not dispute it. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:31 | |
| schestowitz | arp242 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Neurodiversity – up to some point anyway, some people take it a tad too far – is great, but that also means that different people are, well, different, and are good at different things. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Stallman is good at many different things and he doesn't seem like e bad bloke overall. But he is not good at being a leader. At all. It's just not where his aptitudes lie. As a leader he is not only ineffective, but even counter-productive and harmful. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | I feel the entire conversation about the statements surrounding Minsky are a bit of a distraction; what we should really be talking about is something like "is Stallman the best person to represent us as a community?" I'd argue he's not, and has never really been. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:31 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | You can have a conversation whether Stallman is the best person to be a leader, but let's keep false accusations and blatant misinterpretations of his words out of that please. Especially if those words are part of perfectly reasonable thought chain that lots of people on the spectrum would easily agree with (at least when being at the same point in the chain). When I read those attacks, it's not about Stallman anymore to me - it's | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | about me and all the people like me (a group that just happens to include Stallman). | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | If someone lacks enough empathy and social skills to be able to put his words into appropriate context, then maybe they should refrain from interpreting those words (and yet they say that those are qualities that autistic people lack...) | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:31 | |
| schestowitz | arp242 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | > You can have a conversation whether Stallman is the best person to be a leader, but let's keep false accusations and blatant misinterpretations of his words out of that please | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Well, yes, but everyone is talking about this, including your comment. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Was Stallman treated unfairly? Sure. It is what it is; the world is an unfair place. I can't change that either. It's been a few years: let's move on and talk about effective leadership for the movement instead. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:31 | |
| schestowitz | africanboy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | > let's move on and talk about effective leadership for the movement instead. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Let's move on and welcome Stallman back, because we need him more than those that slandered him. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Let's also talk about what should change so it won't happen again, to anybody else. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Not everyone is a gentle giant like Stallman is. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Do you remember what happened to poor Aaron Swarz when he was falsely accused and prosecuted for things he hadn't done? | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | I, speaking for myself, don't want an FSF were people can get thrown out by an internet mob. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | I want an FSF that defends its members and judge facts, not opinions. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | I think Stallman is one of those persons, but I very much welcome other candidates. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:31 | |
| schestowitz | KronisLV 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | This does seem like a slightly emotionally charged response, but overall i agree with you. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | Stallman said things that would get most people "cancelled" nowadays, while his intent might have been to debate the language used, how it was dishonest and how jumping to conclusions might be a disingenuous way to go about things. | Mar 27 00:31 |
| schestowitz | His words, from another post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535974 | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The | Mar 27 00:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-news.ycombinator.com | Cancel We The Web? (2020) | Hacker News | Mar 27 00:32 | |
| schestowitz | word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing... We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates… | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | It seems like an appalling situation, because one can understand why he came across in a way that would make people proceed to label him as someone who's advocating for what Minsky did, or claiming that it's okay. Whereas i get the feeling that RMS might not be entirely neurotypical, which the rest of the linked article seems to hint at - him picking arguments about the seemingly most mundane of things and not really having much of | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | a "filter". | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:32 | |
| schestowitz | africanboy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | It's funny that we are both being downvoted by the same people that think they could do better than Stallman, but are usually younger (sometimes much younger) than the FSF itself. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | I was merely 10 years old when it was started, so basically FSF is as old as the self conscious me, did only good, never betrayed their ideals, never harmed anyone, but Stallman seems to deserve hatred and disrespect only because he exists and don't care about other people opinions enough to be scared by them or by their mob behaviour. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | In the past 35 years the best I could do is convincing less than a hundred people in total to switch to using Linux as their default Operating System at work (of course 99% of them still use proprietary systems at home), Stallman started a visionary movement that changed the way we look at software to its very foundation. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for what he did. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Meanwhile you can see people jumping on the BC, NFT, Apple and other bandwagons, praising them, describing them as "the future" despite the pervasive damage to society and environment they are (allegedly or not) producing, only because they own something of that brand. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | If only Stallman thought of creating a fashion brand to scam people... how silly of him! | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:32 | |
| schestowitz | africanboy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | > But he is not good at being a leader | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Don't 35 years leading the FSF say otherwise? | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Judging from the reactions in the FSF community to his coming back, people were missing him. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:32 | |
| schestowitz | arp242 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Yes, accomplishments in his 35 years include: | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | - A major fracture in the movement (arguably two, if you count GPL2/3). | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | - Actively turning people off (Keith Packard, for example, described why they didn't license X under the GPL: "we had met Richard, and found him a challenging individual"; he later admitted that Stallman was right and that he should have listened). | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | - Sidetracking of pointless issues ("GNU/Linux", "you should not be using hacker", etc.) | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | - Alienating of many people who are generally keen on most of the Free Software principles. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | - Insisting on absolute freedom to the detriment of more freedom than the status quo. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | And so forth. | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:32 | |
| schestowitz | CRConrad 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | > - Actively turning people off (Keith Packard, for example, ... later admitted that Stallman was right | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Packard did, but you're still blaming Stallman for Packard being wrong?!? | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | > - Sidetracking of pointless issues ("GNU/Linux", "you should not be using hacker", etc.) | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | And here you are, posting on Hacker News. Are you sure you could do that, without becoming a pariah among your peers if it came out, without Stallman's "sidetracking"? | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:32 | |
| schestowitz | africanboy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:32 |
| schestowitz | According to this comment, he did better than any other leader in the World. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | > Alienating of many people who are generally keen on most of the Free Software principles | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Did donations went up or down during his leadership? | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | And what happened when he "left"? | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | How many people found out that Stallman was right in retrospect? | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | > Insisting on absolute freedom to the detriment of more freedom than the status quo. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | That's the core mission of the FSF. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Our Core Work | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | The FSF sponsors the GNU Project—the ongoing effort to provide a complete operating system licensed as free software. We also fund and promote important free software development and provide development systems for GNU software maintainers, including full email and shell services and mailing lists. We are committed to furthering the development of the GNU Operating System and enabling volunteers to easily contribute to that work, | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | including sponsoring Savannah the source code repository and center for free software development. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:33 | |
| schestowitz | arp242 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | That last "Our Core Work" paragraph is hilarious and straight from 1996. The special mention that Savannah gets makes it double hilarious, since it's the worst code repository software ever created and was already stale in 2001. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | If you want FSF to be some sort of "by hackers, for hackers" thing: sure, go for it. If you want anything more: lolno. The FSF is Free Software's worst enemy. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:33 | |
| schestowitz | africanboy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | > The FSF is Free Software's worst enemy. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | That's a bold claim, but since I don't have a horse in this race my opinion is that FOSS space is huge and one size fits all is not possible anymore. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | They can't make everybody happy and it would be silly to even try. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | If you don't like FSF, you can support other entities. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | I believe it's perfectly fine to disagree, but I also believe FSF has never forced anybody to do anything they didn't want to do. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | I personally would much prefer to see many others trying than changing what the FSF stands for simply because they are not trying to please everybody. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Anyway, I see people treating Stallman like a devil, while working for big corporations or happily using proprietary software, like Github (Microsoft), while accusing Stallman of being enemy of the free software. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | it's a weird shift from the times when Microsoft was referred as M$... | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:33 | |
| schestowitz | arp242 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | I don't think RMS is "the devil", but we do allow him to frame the debate and priorities, and I don't think this is a good thing as I feel his priorities are all wrong. The more mindshare RMS takes up, the less there is for things that do matter. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Why aren't we using some Free Software platform to develop our software on? No really, if we can't get our own tooling together then what does that say about the movement as a whole? People use GitHub simply because it's the best platform out there; I did a review of many alternatives a while ago, and GitHub was the best by far. It's as simple as that really. The problem with the "RMS mindset" is that "it's Free Software" is enough | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | of a "feature" that will make people use it, and turns out it's not except for quite a small group of people. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Imagine an alternative universe where the FSF had invested significant time an resources in developing a Savannah that actually, you know, worked well. Not only would people use it, and it would have been a great platform to spread the word about Free Software and why it matters. Instead, Stallman writes polemics about how SaaS is evil and you shouldn't be using these "Service as a Software Substitute". Okay, nice... But also | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | missing the point and that's just not how software works today, or will ever work again. The 80s have come and gone. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | I don't work for a big corporation btw; I've actually been work full-time on Free Software for the last 2 years, making about €700/month or so. At least I put my money where my mouth is :-) | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:33 | |
| schestowitz | africanboy 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | > Imagine an alternative universe where the FSF had invested significant time an resources in developing a Savannah that actually, you know, worked well. | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | it works well enough for those who use it I guess | Mar 27 00:33 |
| schestowitz | But I also like to imagine a world where projects like Savannah are backed by investors with very deep pockets instead of existing only out of the hard work of volunteers | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Anyway, I use a private instance of gitea for my personal projects, it costs me 3 euros/month for the hosting and another couple bucks for the storage | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | I agree with what Stallman says about SAAS, I am not as radical as he is, not by a long shot, but SaaS platforms pose a big risk in terms of vendor lock in | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | I also share your frustration about what it could be, but it's not (yet, hopefully) | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | > I don't work for a big corporation btw; I've actually been work full-time on Free Software for the last 2 years, making about €700/month or so. At least I put my money where my mouth is :-) | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | you deserve my gratitude then for all the work that you do personally and as a part of the FOSS community | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:34 | |
| schestowitz | capableweb 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | > intentionally offensive | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | I think this is spot on, because people stopped caring about someone's intention before judging them. Maybe people got so good at lying about their intention, that we don't believe them when they say "it wasn't my intention" when someone says something bad. The end result is the same, it doesn't matter what your intention was, you say something bad, you deserve bad back. | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:34 | |
| schestowitz | lucideer 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | In an ideal world, intent shouldn't really matter (it does matter in our world, for pragmatic reasons, but it shouldn't). If the results of one's actions cause harm, one should be dissuaded from continuing / repeating those actions, regardless of intent. | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | You do rightly point out the reason intent does tend to matter in reality: it's that the response to RMS' actions are punitive ("you deserve bad back"). And ideally people shouldn't be punished for unintended mistakes; they should instead be helped (sorry if that comes across condescending to the offender, but it's true). | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Focusing on intent instead of outcomes is still regressive or reductive in either case though. | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | --- | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Aside: this is somewhat off-topic and probably a debate for a separate comment/thread here, but I do want to note I use the term "harm" above very intentionally; I don't believe "offensive" is the correct term here at all. Being offended is not harmful. I think a lot of aspects of PC/cancel-culture focus on protecting those who are "offended", which is nonsense. If you're not offending people in this world, you're not living. But | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | doing actual harm goes beyond that, and should be addressed. And I do believe RMS' actions were harmful. | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:34 | |
| schestowitz | lawnchair_larry 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Intention matters when the charge consists of someone imparting intent and meaning beyond that which was said. | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | It’s not the case that all people need to be aware of and sensitive to every possible person’s misinterpretation of their message. The inverse is closer to true, and the only viable option. | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | How do you expect someone to know what they don’t know? | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:34 | |
| schestowitz | toiletfuneral 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Yeah thats me, I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome' | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | All the well meaning in the world doesn't mean shit if you're creating hostility or demeaning others (that is not commentary on RMS, just in general) | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:34 | |
| schestowitz | hntrader 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | "I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome'" | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Accidentaly killing someone with your car is very different to negligent driving which causes death which is also very different to intentionally killing someone with your car. | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Clearly intent and context matters a lot. | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:34 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:34 |
| schestowitz | These are all different things, but the end result is that someone has been hit with a car. If your goal is to avoid people being hit with cars and someone keeps accidentally hitting people with their car, then you probably want to considering whether that person should be allowed to drive. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:35 | |
| schestowitz | Guthur 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | The causes are of different classification and require different responses. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | When a cause is systemic it maybe with some natural variance and within what realistically deem acceptable, depending on where we set the bounds. While others maybe special cases and require detailed study to understand. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Blindly setting outcome goals without understanding the system is folly. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:35 | |
| schestowitz | mjg59 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Sure! The response to someone who is deliberately offensive and someone who habitually offends people by accident should be different, and I don't think anyone denies that. But that's not an argument for doing nothing in response to someone who habitually offends people by accident. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:35 | |
| schestowitz | hntrader 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | "But that's not an argument for doing nothing in response to someone who habitually offends people by accident." | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Well that really depends. Offense is sometimes a strategy employed by cynical actors to gain a political advantage. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | If I say that your posts are constantly offending me, what do you propose we do about that? | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | There isn't a universally applicable rule here. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | This is also where the driving analogy breaks down. It's an easy trade-off to revoke someone's license if it means we can prevent death. But taking action to prevent subjective offense enters into a much more tenuous and debatable cost-benefit trade-off. What makes sense would come down to the details of the case. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:35 | |
| schestowitz | mjgs 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | You might also want to consider whether the people that have habitual contact with that accident prone person, should in fact be allowed to have contact with that person. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:35 | |
| schestowitz | RangerNS 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | They don't call them "on purposes". Intent and context do matter. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | On the other hand, if a driver consistently has accidents and people end up dead, it could be that they are a bad driver and shouldn't be in a position to, you know, drive. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:35 | |
| schestowitz | junke 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | > Clearly intent and context matters a lot. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | The parent comment was short, said "as much as", and yet people downvote it, misinterpret it. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:35 | |
| schestowitz | patmcc 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Not so different to the deceased, though. | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:35 | |
| schestowitz | hntrader 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:35 |
| schestowitz | You're extending the analogy beyond its usefulness. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | In the case of subjective offense, it should be and usually is different. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | If you're called a racial slur by someone who just started learning English and genuinely doesn't know the true meaning of the word, you should take less offense to it than if you were called the slur by someone with obvious malicious intent. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Intent and context matters both in terms of how the "accused" should be viewed as well as how the "victim" should feel. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | AzzieElbab 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | I have never in my life seen so much hostility generated by good intentions as we are seeing now during this woke revolution. I repeat - never! And I lived through collapses of two failed states. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | astrange 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | There's nothing new about wokeness. It's just what American Protestantism looks like; Americans have always been this way. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Even used to be called the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Awakes | Mar 27 00:36 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-en.wikipedia.org | Wide Awakes - Wikipedia | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | AzzieElbab 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Interesting, but woke beliefs are based on European deconstructionism and the goals and methods look more like post-marxist/maoist | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | TMWNN 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Nothing "post" about it. Wokeism's forced public self-abasement via Twitter is the classic Communist struggle session put online. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | rayiner 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | They may have good intentions, but they lack respect for established norms, and spend little time thinking about the function and purpose of those norms. They kick over Chesterton's fence and assume it was there because Chesterton was some sort -ist: https://fs.blog/2020/03/chestertons-fence/ | Mar 27 00:36 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-fs.blog | Chesterton’s Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | AzzieElbab 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | That is what revolutions are about, no? | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | rayiner 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Only some revolutions involve unfocused rage at existing norms, and they’re usually bad ones (like the French Revolution). | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | phkahler 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | >> I have never in my life seen so much hostility generated by good intentions as we are seeing now during this woke revolution. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | The "woke" don't actually have good intentions. There are several motivations, but good intent just seems to be an excuse for the hostility you mention. | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:36 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:36 | |
| schestowitz | mhh__ 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | The vast majority of people you would write off as ""woke"" do have good intentions. There's just a very loud minority just as there are in any political movement. | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | AzzieElbab 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | I actually can see where the person you are replying to is coming from. That loud minority can be viewed as leadership, and they seem to fall into three categories- grifters, bullies, and burn the world types | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | NateEag 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | That's a strong statement about a whole lot of people. | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Maybe you should limit that to "The 'woke' people I know." | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | africanboy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | > you say something bad, you deserve bad back | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | But he didn't, he was falsely accused. | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | So maybe the people that accused him deserve something bad back too. | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | bigtones 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Selam Jie Gano, a female at MIT when he worked there wrote: | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | “There is no single person that is so deserving of praise their comments deprecating others should be allowed to slide. Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.” | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | wishdasher 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | If you read her post, she was an undergraduate in Mechanical Engineering, and by her own admittance did not ever work nor interact with RMS at MIT. | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | dralley 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | This guy, however, did. | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa... | Mar 27 00:37 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa ) | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | etrabroline 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Great quote. I think a large fraction of male programmers would disagree with Selam Jie Gano's characterization of RMS's statements. These kinds of "culture war" battles should not be happening in GNU. Free Software should be happening and people should be willing to leave these disagreements at the door. If you aren't, I am significantly less interested in working with you and I suspect many GNU contributors are as well. | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:37 | |
| schestowitz | boomboomsubban 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | I don't get this. "You should abandon any other ideals you have when working for our ideological project." | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:37 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | themacguffinman 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | The point of an ideological project (or any project, really) is to try and get everyone pulling in the same direction. GNU/FSF is an organization for one specific ideal: free software. It's not intended as a vehicle for any random ideal people care about. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | boomboomsubban 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | >It's not intended as a vehicle for any random ideal people care about. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Who used it like that? Stallman's comments happened outside the organization, the tweet was from someone I think unrelated to the project. I can understand keeping other ideals out of the project, but in context you're telling people not to express other ideals. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | themacguffinman 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | > the tweet was from someone I think unrelated to the project | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Seems fine for unrelated Twitter randos to say whatever they want about RMS, but would be distracting and counterproductive for GNU/FSF to permanently ban RMS in support of Twitter randos' unrelated ideals. I never said or implied anything about stopping Twitter randos from expressing or doing whatever they want. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | boomboomsubban 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | I was asking you who used it as a vehicle... as the two people directly being discussed had not. I did not think you were trying to stop random people on twitter. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | I think you're answering that GNU/FSF used it improperly but am not certain. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | themacguffinman 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Yes, the people working for GNU/FSF started using GNU/FSF to punish RMS in support of other ideals. Twitter randos may have talked about it but it's up to the GNU/FSF to focus & act on it. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | RangerNS 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | ... in the name of the organization. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | And RMS's "pleasure cards" listing his office address and organizational email certainly indicate that his private activities are the organizations activities. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | boomboomsubban 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Yes, he should have been reprimanded for using the organization's name to make a bad joke seemingly decades ago. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | zajio1am 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Basic compartmentalization. If i have ideological goals A, B, C, then i can work on goal A with people who are indifferent or against B, C, and also work on goal B with people who are indifferent or against A, C, instead of trying to find people in intersection of A, B, C. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | kaba0 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | I doubt people can compartmentalize things that are in vehement disagreement with their core values. | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Would Stallman work on implementing a DRM? | Mar 27 00:38 |
| schestowitz | And not in this case, but what about someone denying the other’s existence? Actively supporting groups that work on restricting someone’s basic rights? (Mozilla with Eich) | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:39 | |
| schestowitz | zajio1am 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | > Would Stallman work on implementing a DRM? | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | It is a big difference working on A with people i disagree about B, and actively working against one's values. I can work with non-vegetarians on software, but i would not work in slaughterhouse. | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | > And not in this case, but what about someone denying the other’s existence? | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | As an LGBT person (and pro same-sex marriage), i think that mixing up 'being against same-sex marriage' and 'denying the other’s existence' is just horrible rhetorical device, fear-mongering about opponent's position. | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:39 | |
| schestowitz | mssundaram 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Is something cut off in that quote? I don't understand how to read it | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:39 | |
| schestowitz | vharuck 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | "There is no single person that is so deserving of praise [that] their comments deprecating others should be allowed to slide. Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.” | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:39 | |
| schestowitz | mssundaram 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Ah! Thank you | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:39 | |
| schestowitz | koonsolo 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | I'm not autistic, and I think RMS statement was 100% rational. If not, then anyone can show me where he is factually wrong. | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:39 | |
| schestowitz | secondcoming 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | It also an issue I have with Codes of Conduct. There was a person who posted to the LKML about his autism and concerns over unintentionally violating the CoC, and whether he should continue to contribute or not. I don't recall anyone replying to him and his concerns either. | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Computing can possibly be considered a 'safe space' for people like the above but that has now been dismantled to suit other people. Who owns the safe spaces? | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | I'm not condoning people being assholes, BTW. | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:39 | |
| schestowitz | dale_glass 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | On LKML I'm not really seeing the difficulty. Just stick to the point: "Here's a patch that does X, Y, and Z". | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | If having to criticize something do it on technical grounds: "This part here is wrong because it's possible to go past the end of the buffer in this case". | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | I know that some people sometimes post colorful rants on there, but I don't think it adds anything good to the atmosphere, and any time spent on coming up with florid prose could be spent on code that actually does something useful instead. | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:39 | |
| schestowitz | ruined 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | plenty of autistic people manage to be decent. making excuses like this simply dodges responsibility and assigns bad credit to millions of autistic people who don't deserve it, and amounts to concern trolling. | Mar 27 00:39 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:40 | |
| schestowitz | microtherion 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | It's very difficult to generalize over autistic people, because autism encompasses such a wide range of behaviors and abilities. But many people on the autism spectrum seem to have in common that they have (a) below average ability in picking up subtle social cues and (b) above average ability in memorizing and following rules. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | In consequence, if RMS is truly on the autism spectrum (I have no idea whether he is), never setting clear boundaries for him may have left him genuinely confused as to what constitutes appropriate behavior, and ultimately did neither him nor his cause any favors. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:40 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Based on much of what I read the last time around with this mess, it seems to me, though, that RMS just doesn't care. It's one thing to be genuinely confused what's appropriate and what's not, but it's another to just not care. It seems like people tried many, many times to set clear boundaries for him, but he continued to blow right through them. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Was that a fault of his, or a fault of his neuroatypical brain? I don't know enough about him or his situation to know. But does it matter? I do think that intent and context matters, but often the bad outcome is the same regardless of intent. The consequences should be different between intentional and unintentional harm, but there still should be consequences either way. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:40 | |
| schestowitz | henriquez 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Your statement is analogous to saying “all autistic people are the same” which is itself very offensive. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:40 | |
| schestowitz | ruined 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | show me where i said that. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | autistic people are not uniquely malevolent, and it is not offensive to suggest autistic people are not uniquely malevolent. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | the premise at the root of the thread was that autistic people can't tell bad ideas from good ideas, and should thus go forever uncriticized. both in that it's wrong, and in that it casts autistic people as corruptible and dangerous, when we know very well most "normal" allistic people are perfectly capable of great evils. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | advocating that it should be acceptable for autistic people to cause harm is not helpful. it promotes the stereotype that autistic people are harmful, resulting in further social rejection and discrimination, and allows abusive people to hide behind the label. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:40 | |
| schestowitz | henriquez 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | > advocating that it should be acceptable for autistic people to cause harm is not helpful. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | It should be acceptable to empathize and forgive. People who exhibit “atypical” personality traits need this the most of all. Judging all people through the lens of a neurotypical morality construct is inherently harmful. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:40 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | > was that autistic people can't tell bad ideas from good ideas | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | They can tell that. Sometimes maybe even better than others. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | What they can't do well is navigate across social clues that others pick up instinctively. That aren't explicitly spoken. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | It's not about considering them harmful or not, it's not whether they should be forgiven or not. It's about understanding. An autistic person behaves in a way that you interpret as "being an asshole" not because they can't tell whether they're being an asshole - it's because they think in a different way and their reasoning makes perfect sense for them and doesn't make them seem like an asshole. You lack that reasoning, so you | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | misinterpret their intentions. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | The point is to understand why someone may act in the way they do, instead of assuming that they would act in the same way you would. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | For instance, something that you would say just out of politeness can be interpreted by an autistic person very literally. When you ask "would you like to make me a tea?", expect "no" to be a totally polite and honest answer. That's literally what you asked about. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:40 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | > An autistic person behaves in a way that you interpret as "being an asshole" not because they can't tell whether they're being an asshole - it's because they think in a different way and their reasoning makes perfect sense for them and doesn't make them seem like an asshole. | Mar 27 00:40 |
| schestowitz | Aren't you basically doing the same thing as the parent is accused of doing, though? Painting all autistic people with the same brush? | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Just like non-autistic people, autistic people can also be assholes. Some recognize that they can't pick up on social cues, but just don't care. Many do! But some don't. RMS may be one of the uncaring kind, and it seems a lot of what people have said about him may support that. And do we really want someone like that running advocacy for Free Software? | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | > Just like non-autistic people, autistic people can also be assholes. | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | I figured that it goes without saying, since that case doesn't need additional explanations ;] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | asdfasgasdgasdg 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | To me, the only thing implied by the above comment is that "all autistic people are capable of being decent to other people." That doesn't seem offensive, although it may be incorrect (I simply do not know). | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | henriquez 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Clearly not all neurotypical people are capable of being decent to others, so how would it make sense that all autistic people are? | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | No, to assume that forgiveness or empathy to one autistic individual denigrates an entire spectrum of autistic individuals is the same as assuming that from the actions of one we can confer some sort of collective responsibility. This assumption is the root of all prejudice. | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | >Clearly not all neurotypical people are capable of being decent to others, so how would it make sense that all autistic people are? | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | If you believe that some autistic people can be decent, though, it's no longer an excuse for Stallman that he's autistic. I'm on the spectrum myself, it's not a free pass for being offensive. | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | paulcole 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | > Clearly not all neurotypical people are capable of being decent to others | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | This is not clear to me. Many people are assholes but that’s by choice, not because they’re incapable of not being assholes. | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | hedora 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | It is incorrect. Autism is a spectrum. | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | astrange 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Note that RMS says he doesn't have autism. High functioning autism doesn't look like being rude anyway; it's just some combination of talking for too long and being very sensitive to environmental disturbances. | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | RHSeeger 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Actually, I took it more as saying that having an offensive personality and being autistic are orthogonal. While it is possible for a person to be both autistic and offensive, using their autism as an excuse for their being offensive does not make sense. | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:41 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:41 | |
| schestowitz | throw6119088 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | I just wanna leave here some classic papers on sexism and harassment in tech, which are relevant even now: | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | [1] Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists (Ellen Spertus, 1991) | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7040 | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | [2] How to Encourage Women in Linux (Val Henson, 2002) | Mar 27 00:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-dspace.mit.edu | Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists? | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/ | Mar 27 00:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-tldp.org | HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | [3] What Happens to Us Does Not Happen to Most of You (Kathryn S. McKinley, 2018) | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | https://www.sigarch.org/what-happens-to-us-does-not-happen-t... | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | [4] Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, 2001) | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-P... | Mar 27 00:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.sigarch.org | What Happens to Us Does Not Happen to Most of You | SIGARCH | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-P ) | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | jedimastert 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | I've always been against this scarlet letter mentality that seems pervasive. | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | I've also been vocally against RMS's particular brand of outreach as being incredibly alienating of the people whose opinions he actually needs to address. Admittedly, if he does have autism there's a ton of things that start to make sense, speaking from my own experiences with and around it, but I can't actually find a reference to any confirmed diagnosis from him. He's said he "suspects" as such, and I might as well, but it doesn' | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | t really help as neither of us are trained professionals. That being said, from my experience with autistic folks and what I know about him, it's not super surprising that he wouldn't get himself actually diagnosed or checked. | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | He called himself borderline autistic in 2000 but said it was an exaggeration in 2008.[1] | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy... | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | unanswered 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.computerworld.com | Asperger's Oxymoron | Computerworld | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | Would his getting a diagnosis and publicly sharing that private medical information make you start treating him as an actual human being, or nah? | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | jedimastert 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | I would disagree with his rhetorical stylings whether or not he had autism, and probably wouldn't change much in the way of how I disagreed or really talked about him. | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | > publicly sharing that private medical information | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | Are we gonna side-step the fact that he's publicly stated in several interviews that he suspects that he's on the spectrum, or nah? | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | > make you start treating him as an actual human being | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | In what way have I not? | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | unanswered 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | > In what way have I not? | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | Publicly speculating about medical diagnoses, for one thing. | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:42 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:42 | |
| schestowitz | jedimastert 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | I'm not speculating about medical diagnosis, I'm speculating on public statements from the man himself. | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | IfOnlyYouKnew 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Being “neurodivergent” isn’t a license to hurt people. Yes, it is a reason to refrain from punishing someone, because punishment requires guilt. It isn’t a reason not to take the steps necessary to protect others, such as not putting them in a position of power. | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Example: it doesn’t make sense to punish a cat that eats your parrot, because that’s what cats do. It does make sense to lock the door between the cat and the parrot. | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | choeger 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | There is no objectivity in this. RMS was attacked by a specific subgroup of the identity culture. He could well be defended by another. Sometimes identity politics just seems to be the continuation of european leftist splinter group infighting with other means. | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | bluehat 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Neurodivergent folks often need a little extra time to learn or for somebody to sit down and explain things to clearly. We do not need a carte blanche for decades of sexual harassment. That's just somebody being an asshole and using us as a shield. | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | gypsyharlot 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Exactly. Unfortunately, there are activists within the GNU movement, like Andy Wingo, that have done everything they can to have RMS removed from everything he has built. | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | junke 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | People part of the GNU movement say "we owe a debt of gratitude to Richard Stallman for his decades of important work in the free software movement". Andy Wingo said "he created GNU, speaking it into existence via prophetic narrative and via code; yes, he inspired many people, myself included, to make the vision of a GNU system into a reality; and yes, he should be recognized for these things." | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | They also say: "Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users." | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Andy also wrote: "I can hear you saying it. RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be. GNU has long outgrown any individual contributor. I don't think RMS has the legitimacy to tell this group of largely volunteers what we should build or how we should organize ourselves. Or rather, he can say what he thinks, but he has no dominion over GNU; he does not have majority sweat equity in the project. But I don't accept | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | that. GNU is about practical software freedom, not about RMS. [...] I simply state that I, personally, do not serve RMS." | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Your comment is the one attributing to others malicious intent: | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | "Unfortunately, there are activists within the GNU movement, like Andy Wingo, that have done everything they can to have RMS removed from everything he has built." | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | I don't know why, maybe when you get older (as I do), you start being afraid of being put out of work by younger people (I don't), or maybe you are yourself neurodivergent and weird with people (I do). It is logical, then, to feel empathy for rms. But, factually, rms is not being confronted for his "quircks" or his age. | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | The way public figures behave, publicly and in their relationship with others as part of their work, has an impact on the culture it encourages. The fact that people express discomfort, fear, etc. when they want to contribute to free software is worrying. I feel bad for them. I see nothing unfortunate here in having people confront someone in power for his behaviour. | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | I mean, it is 2021, do I need to quote the Peter Parker principle? | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | --- | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and... | Mar 27 00:43 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and ) | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... | Mar 27 00:43 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr ) | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | https://www.forbes.com/sites/heidilynnekurter/2019/12/23/4-s... | Mar 27 00:43 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://www.forbes.com/sites/heidilynnekurter/2019/12/23/4-s/ ) | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:43 | |
| schestowitz | gypsyharlot 1 day ago [–] | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | Thanks for finding those resources. In this one: | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and... | Mar 27 00:43 |
| schestowitz | He says: | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | "The result, sadly, is that a significant proportion of those that have stuck with GNU don't see any problems with RMS." | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Yes, isn't it sad that so many don't see any problems with RMS. What can we do about that? How can we make people see problems with RMS? This is despicable activism. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:44 | |
| schestowitz | howinteresting 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | I am an incredibly neurodivergent person and through focused effort, driven by caring about how other people feel, I've picked up on many social cues. I am comfortable excluding people who use their neurodivergence as an excuse to be unkind to other people. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:44 | |
| schestowitz | adolph 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | >I am comfortable excluding people who | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Could this be an opportunity for your focused effort? Exclusion is dramatically unkind. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:44 | |
| schestowitz | howinteresting 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | It is unkind, but sometimes one has to be unkind to prevent greater harms from happening. Such is life. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:44 | |
| schestowitz | account42 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | That is just an excuse to be unkind whenever convenient. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:44 | |
| schestowitz | JohnBooty 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Celebrating neurodiversity is crucial! It is in my view a very basic human rights issue. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | However it does not, or at least should not, extend to excusing/permitting behaviors that hurt others. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Much human anguish and suffering could be alleviated if we had a greater understanding of one simple truth: "your rights end where mine begin." | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | On balance, I think RMS is ultimately a person who has greatly benefited the world. However, the stories of people made uncomfortable by his actions and statements are legion and in a more practical sense are detrimental to his cause. How can folks with with/under him when he's behaving in some of these ways? Why does the leader of the FSF even need to be broadcasting his beliefs that Minsky did nothing wrong when he had sex with a | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | 17 year-old provided to him by a child trafficker? | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | As somebody who (like most folks on HN, probably) is not exactly "neurotypical", I realize that it's part of my responsibility to moderate my own words and actions if I want to take part in society. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:44 | |
| schestowitz | SpicyLemonZest 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | I just fundamentally reject the equivalence between “hurt” and “uncomfortable”. The idea that people have a moral obligation to be normal, that I’ve been injured when someone acts weird or offers distasteful opinions, could come straight out of a Moral Majority handbook. It only makes sense from within a strict monoculture, where everyone feels obligated to conform and confident that the things they have to conform with | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | are unchanging. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:44 | |
| schestowitz | JohnBooty 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | This is not about a strict monoculture. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | You can have a robust and diverse culture in which there's broad agreement that a few things are bad - murder, slavery, sex with minors, etc. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | RMS defended Minsky's sex with a minor and perhaps more relevantly if we read the linked articles, it's part of a longstanding trend with him. And he feels the need to push these views on others in a workplace/academic setting, via mailing lists. | Mar 27 00:44 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:45 | |
| schestowitz | buisi 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | To be fair, he voiced most of his opinions on his personal blog, and not on the mailing list. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | His personal blog is presumably a place which you would peruse, if you wanted to know what his personal views on things are, and it was so obscure that seemingly no one knew of it until someone really went digging. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Not only that, but he didn't even make these views with any particular frequency. One was made in 2006. Another six years later. So, a couple of comments he casually tossed out over decades, in a place where he would have expected few to ever see it. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | To be clear, I don't agree with many of his opinions (some suggest he might have worded his opinions really, really badly, and might mean something else), although I agree with one original blog post he referenced, where child porn laws have become so stretched they're being applied in places they were never originally intended to be. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Like someone recording evidence to provide to the police of their children behaving in an overtly sexual manner which could be an indicator of abuse, arresting someone for a drawing which is a serious waste of police resources, the risk that someone can't reference historical images like the one from Vietnam, and so on. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | On the mailing list, he responded in a literal fashion taking the premise that Minsky had been misled. Unfortunately, it was poorly worded. If he had simply said that, rather than going on about her "presenting herself", or the other utterances, then it wouldn't even be a story. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:45 | |
| schestowitz | JohnBooty 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Right. I have full faith that his belief was that Minsky had made an honest mistake with a girl that would be considered legal anyway in large swaths of the world. I give RMS (what I would consider to be) the full benefit of the doubt here and I believe his message was less "Minsky is blameless" or "sex with kids is okay" and more "let's not confuse Minky's poor judgement with far, far more heinous crimes." And I wouldn't even | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | really disagree with RMS there on a factual level. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Even given this generous interpretation, RMS' poorly chosen words are still rather egregious. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Specifically he misses the forest for the trees. A fundamental duty of adults is to make sure that our sex partners are (a) of legal age (b) truly freely consenting without coercion. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | One can think of various circumstances in which one might reasonably make such a mistake in good faith. However, somebody's private... child sex island is not one of those places. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Even more importantly, RMS neglects even some sort of token recognition of the actual victims of Epstein's trafficking. Hint: Minsky is not one of them! | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:45 | |
| schestowitz | geofft 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | If we're going to be understanding towards neurodivergent people, a good place to start is not defining "autism" as "the inability to be anything other than an asshole, the inability to understand after people patiently work with you to explain why people think you're being an asshole [1], and the inability to apologize." | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Also, a lot of the people who are upset with RMS and think he should stop being the figurehead of the movement are, themselves, neurodivergent! If we're going to assume that autistic people are fundamentally incapable of communicating with mainstream norms, what do we do for autistic people who are harmed by RMS's actions but aren't able to express it in a way the mainstream can hear? | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:45 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ebb.org | On Recent Controversial Events - Bradley M. Kuhn ( Brad ) ( bkuhn ) | Mar 27 00:45 | |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:45 | |
| schestowitz | duxup 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | I'm wondering how we decide where people who are different are behaving because of that.... or a choice they made that they are responsible for? | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | I'm not sure how to make that call. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:45 | |
| schestowitz | ddingus 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | What we can do is speak to their actions and leave the door open for them to improve. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | And I am not talking about avoiding consequences. Those are ever present as they should be. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | However it all plays out, if we do shut that door, what inventive is there for people to improve? | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Secondly, how do they actually present having done it, or even begin the attempt when those doors are slammed shut? | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | It should not be easy, but should also be possible. | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:45 | |
| schestowitz | spicybright 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:45 |
| schestowitz | I think in recent years people are being criticized for what they say rather than what they do, as if saying it is the same as doing it. You should be able to hold a negative viewpoint as long as you don't act on it. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | YeGoblynQueenne 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | How do we know that Richard Stallman is autistic? | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | eyelidlessness 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | I find it strange as a neurodivergent person that this person has a reputation for abusive behavior and that’s excused for him because he has celebrity in certain circles. I wouldn’t and shouldn’t be afforded that, and rightly haven’t when I’ve misunderstood how to treat others. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | colechristensen 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | I do not. Being unusual does not free you from the burdens of being a decent person, especially while in a public leadership position, especially when your violations are a repeated trend over a very long period. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | With the right diagnostic criteria just about everybody who is an asshole could be diagnosed with some mental disorder or another and that is more or less the present state of psychology, that kind of reasoning is asking for a consequence free society. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | The kind of person RMS has shown himself to be, regardless of diagnosis, disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | SilverRed 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | I don't think RMS has ever intentionally been an asshole. The event that got him kicked out was him trying to clarify that someone he worked with may not of known all the details of the situation and that people shouldn't witch hunt this person who was not around to defend themself. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Sure it was a very risky and emotionally charged email thread but RMS still very much seems like a decent person. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | >The event that got him kicked out was him trying to clarify that someone he worked with may not of known all the details of the situation and that people shouldn't witch hunt this person who was not around to defend themselfs. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | No, it went much further than that: | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of... | Mar 27 00:46 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of ) | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | lawnchair_larry 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Doesn’t look like it did. Looks like another case of cancel culture and nobody reading what he actually said. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman... | Mar 27 00:46 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-arstechnica.com | Richard Stallman leaves MIT after controversial remarks on rape | Ars Technica | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:46 | |
| schestowitz | lawnchair_larry 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | I encourage you to read what he actually said rather than digest it through hit pieces, because it’s not even controversial. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | He said that, hypothetically, if someone had sex with a victim of sex trafficking unkowingly - that is, the sex part was knowingly, but the victim of sex trafficking part was unknown, then it would not be fair to charge the man with rape. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | If I kidnap a woman, sell her has a sex slave, and threaten her and her family that if she doesn’t walk up to you in a bar and act interested, and you mistake her for a willing participant, this obviously does not make you a rapist. | Mar 27 00:46 |
| schestowitz | I don’t know if this is a willful distortion of what he said or what would motivate such a smear campaign, or if every is just shockingly bad at reading comprehension. But what he said was correct, and we all know it. | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:47 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | I read them this in light of his past statements here, which seem to cast the statements he made around Minsky differently. In particular, | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html | Mar 27 00:47 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallman.org | 2006: March - June Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:47 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:47 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | And what's wrong with that take, exactly? It's a natural conclusion any critical thinker who strongly values individualism will come into before they start to consider the differences of power at play that make giving and recognizing actual consent very tricky (even for adults, let alone children); which actually isn't that obvious to notice at all if you have never been in such situation yourself before. This is a take that is | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | logically coherent and honest - and naturally progresses once you learn new information. Which seems to be exactly what happened in case of Stallman, who retracted his earlier opinion in a logically coherent way. | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Honestly, I'm amazed at how many bad ideas people can come into just because they don't understand that other people may think with different processes than they do. I'm honestly not sure whether it's intellectual laziness or pure malice (or both). | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:47 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | >And what's wrong with that take, exactly? | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | You know what's wrong with it and you described what's wrong with it over the next several sentences. Somebody who doesn't understand that is not fit to be a leader. If you don't understand those power imbalances, you are bound to do harm. | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:47 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | > If you don't understand those power imbalances, you are bound to do harm. | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | That's not a bad point. But then it turns out that it's not really connected to the statements about Minsky, is it? | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | > Somebody who doesn't understand that is not fit to be a leader. | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | This is stretching it way too far, since this assumes that understanding of power in hypothetical scenario that doesn't connect to yourself somehow translates to ones ability to assess their own power. This may be true for some, but doesn't have to be. I won't be convinced that someone is unfit to be a leader because they didn't recognize the issues of power in a hypothetical scenario they have never been in. Heck, I myself | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | constantly learn and start to see them in cases I never considered before. Different perspective changes everything, and there are perspectives I simply never witnessed until someone told me about them! | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:47 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | > That's not a bad point. But then it turns out that it's not really connected to the statements about Minsky, is it? | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | The statements about Minsky are harmful. What reason is there to be coming to somebody’s defense when they are credibly accused of something like that? Frankly I don’t want friends who would react like Stallman did if I were to be accused as seriously as Minsky has been. | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | People who are going to do harm because they don’t understand power imbalances should not be leaders. Yes, we’re all bad at something, but if that’s the thing you’re bad at, it’s probably not the place for you in our society. On this I will be firm. It is incumbent on leaders to understand power and take the potential for abuse in situations of power differential seriously. They must be scrupulous. These comments would not | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | be made by someone who is scrupulous about power imbalances. | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:47 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | > What reason is there to be coming to somebody’s defense when they are credibly accused of something like that? | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Accused of what exactly? See, the whole point of Stallman's statements was to clarify what exactly Minsky was being accused of, no more no less. He didn't even doubt those accusations in any way. It's plainly written there in his e-mail. You're being dishonest. | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:47 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:47 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | >Accused of what exactly? | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Accused of having sex with one of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking victims. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | >See, the whole point of Stallman's statements was to clarify what exactly Minsky was being accused of, no more no less. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | It's quite plain what Stallman was responding to. Stallman himself even says he sees no reason to disbelieve it. Unfortunately, "I didn't know she was a 17-year-old sex trafficking victim when I raped her" is not much of a defense, to me, ethically. Stallman imagines a situation in which Minsky was duped into having sex with this person without knowing her situation or her age. Why does Minsky get the benefit of the doubt here? This | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | is not a court of law, and he was not a stupid man, to say the least. He even organized an academic symposium on Little St. James with Epstein in 2011, after he was already registered as a sex offender. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:48 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | > is not much of a defense, to me, ethically | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | So what? It's not a defense, obviously, but it's enough to ask not to use the word "assault" when talking about those accusations because it's clearly misleading. It makes you imagine different things when you hear it than what is actually being talked about. You don't even have to give Minsky any benefit of doubt to ask for that. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Whether that changes the moral or ethical outcome is completely irrelevant (and of course, I don't think it does). | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | We're talking about a person who refuses to use singular they because... it's grammatically ambiguous so he comes up with and consistently uses perse/per/pers instead[0]. Like, c'mon, showing up in that thread to argue about used words is the most on-brand thing he could do. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | [0] https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:48 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallman.org | Better Genderless Pronouns in English | Mar 27 00:48 | |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:48 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | > It's not a defense, obviously, but it's enough to ask not to use the word "assault" when talking about those accusations because it's clearly misleading. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Is it though? If the victim was coerced, and he’s complicit in causing a great deal of harm, why wouldn’t we call it assault? Not all sexual assault involves battery, and pretending that it does is silly. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | >Like, c'mon, showing up in that thread to argue about used words is the most on-brand thing he could do. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | I don’t think I ever argued this was atypical behavior for him. The fact that it’s expected is the part I find unacceptable. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:48 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | "To assault" means "to make a physical attack on". You can rape someone or deal harm otherwise without assaulting them. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | > The fact that it’s expected is the part I find unacceptable. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Thanks for explicitly spelling this out then. This is a pretty standard way of thinking for many neurodivergents. You're just saying "people of your kind cannot be public figures, and if they are they have to be taken down". | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:48 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | > "To assault" means "to make a physical attack on". You can rape someone without assaulting them. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | That’s not how sexual assault is defined though. Quoting Wikipedia: “Sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.” Avoiding this, like Stallman did, is a way of playing with semantics to reduce the seriousness of an accusation. He may be doing this because he’s | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | autistic and rigid. I’ve done similar in the past because I’m similarly rigid, but it absolutely comes from a place of defensiveness too. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | >This is a pretty standard way of thinking for many neurodivergents. You're just saying "people of your kind cannot be public figures, and if they are they have to be taken down". | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | I’m autistic, dude. This shit makes no sense to me. Saying it’s a “standard way of thinking” is doing us a disservice. Public figures cannot express opinions like this about rape! Autistic men who don’t seem to understand consent like this, or think they have figured out an inconsistency in society’s rules around sex, freak me the hell out. I expect other autistic people to have a hard time complying with social rules, | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | but the fact that the rules are difficult for us is not an excuse for not following them, particularly if you want to lead a diverse group of people. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Stallman is certainly not the best the autistic community has to offer, and I really wish you would stop implying he is. | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:48 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:48 |
| schestowitz | > Avoiding this, like Stallman did, is a way of playing with semantics to reduce the seriousness of an accusation. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Well, yes, since the point was to speak against what he called "accusation inflation" - which, I believe, wasn't even directed as much to Minksy's case as into general usage of that term in English: | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing... | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Notice how it was "accused of assaulting" that Stallman spoke against, and that "sexual assault" was then mentioned by Stallman as a way to explain his position. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | And guess what? I don't actually agree with his opinion about the term "sexual assault". I mean, I see his reasoning and I agree with it on its own, but to me that ship has sailed - it's not enough for me to challenge the already existing usage of that term; especially when it does actually make some sense to "inflate" its meaning, because the harm done by non-consensual sexual acts often greatly exceeds the physical attack aspect | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | itself (which may not even be there). So I can accept that term even though I find it somewhat inaccurate, technically. Kinda metaphorical. It clearly is enough for Stallman though, as evidenced by many other language crusades he's been on for his whole life. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | That said, the fact that it was "assault" and not "sexual assault" that was used there in the announcement seems to just prove the Stallman's point. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | > Stallman is certainly not the best the autistic community has to offer, and I really wish you would stop implying he is. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Where was I implying that? That's very far from what I'd ever be comfortable with suggesting. Stallman doesn't even properly recognize his shortcomings and could really put much greater effort into dealing with them which would help him and his causes (and in turn, my causes, since I share his concerns about software freedom). This particular case is, however, not an example of that. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | > Public figures cannot express opinions like this about rape! | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Which opinions? What does "like this" mean? I honestly don't follow! My own views on this matter are exactly what some would describe as very "leftist" or "woke", and I do share your concern about men who don't understand consent. People in privileged position (which men that don't have to wear in a specific way every day out of the fear of being assaulted certainly are in) have greater responsibility when it comes to understanding | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | such issues. That said, you don't need to belittle consent to point out that "assault" in "sexual assault" doesn't mean literal "assault" anymore, especially in context of situation where there was no evidence that the act even took place at all in the first place (which might have changed since, I don't know - I really couldn't care less about Minsky himself). Mind you - Stallman didn't even mention that. If his intention was to | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | defend Minsky, he was a very poor defender. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Also, | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | > Autistic men who don’t seem to understand consent like this, or think they have figured out an inconsistency in society’s rules around sex, freak me the hell out. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | That's a real issue, and it leads such people to plenty of suffering and depression. They should be educated, not ostracized. If we don't do it, they may turn somewhere else where they'll get worse - there are some circles that claim to offer them "help" and "answers" already, but those don't make the society a better place. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:49 | |
| schestowitz | jolux 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | >It clearly is enough for Stallman though, as evidenced by many other language crusades he's been on for his whole life. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | The context is significant here though, because he has a history of belittling women and being insensitive to concerns about consent. These specific characteristics are red flags. It doesn't really matter whether the person bringing them up thinks they have wholly rational reasons to, or that they're just pointing out something interesting about language. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | >Which opinions? What does "like this" mean? I honestly don't follow! | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | He said that Minsky probably would not have known that he was having sex with a minor who was also being coerced, and thus to him the victim would probably have appeared "entirely willing," as if that would make the act ok, or make it not constitute "sexual assault." He also said that he thought defining age of consent based on the law was ridiculous, which would be a colorable philosophical argument if we had any better way for | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | defining and preventing child sexual abuse in our societies. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | >If his intention was to defend Minsky, he was a very poor defender. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | I'm sure he was, since he ended up essentially getting fired for what he said. I'm not here to litigate whether his specific example is sound, as you acknowledge that it's not. But the fact that he had to turn an accusation aimed at another MIT colleague with connections to Epstein into an opportunity to further a personal vendetta over the precise use of language used to describe rape — charitably you could say it was said in | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | immensely poor taste. At worst, it does amount to attempting to defend or minimize the accusation. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | >That's a real issue, and it leads such people to plenty of suffering and depression. They should be educated, not ostracized. If we don't do it, they may turn somewhere else where they'll get worse - there are some circles that claim to offer them "help" and "answers" already, but those don't make the society a better place. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | It's sure led me to a lot of suffering, and depression, and severe anxiety. I don't feel safe around many men I meet in tech-centric spaces. All my friends have horror stories about abuse and harassment in our field. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | And I'm sure the abusive men are depressed too. That's, of course, sadly common with autism. But they do need to get educated, and stop using their disability as an excuse for being insensitive. I'm not required to spend time around people who make me feel unsafe, regardless of gender, just so that they don't feel ostracized. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:49 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | > as if that would make the act ok, or make it not constitute "sexual assault." | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | It doesn't appear to me as "making the act ok", I'm not sure where that comes from at all. He didn't even hint that it wasn't a case of "sexual assault". All he said is that it wasn't "assault" (which was the exact term being used in the announcement), and that he dislikes the way the other term - "sexual assault" - leads to people misusing the term "assault" in the first place; and explained why. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Was that a proper way, time and place to do that? Nope! Was it in poor taste and prone to misinterpretation? Absolutely! Does speaking in poor taste (or even questioning the institution of age of consent) make you child abuse apologist? Heck no. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Regarding the context of belittling women and consent insensitivity - I don't have enough information about Stallman to accurately assess that. I've seen some stories that appear credible, but I've also seen some that are so blatantly misinterpreted that reading them makes me feel sick. Therefore I remain cautious, both ways. | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:49 | |
| schestowitz | lawnchair_larry 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Based on what he was accused of? You want all of your friends to ditch you based on an accusation? Regardless of the Epstein thing, this is not a take that you have given much thought. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | I could accuse you right now of touching 5 year olds in the park, and by your own claim, you would want all of your friends to abandon you. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Your whole rationale about power imbalances doesn’t even make sense in this context. He is writing unix tools, not running a daycare. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | teddyh 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ | Mar 27 00:50 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-sterling-archermedes.github.io | Low grade "journalists" and internet mob attack RMS with lies. In-depth review. | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | sebmellen 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | That’s such a ridiculous viewpoint. Someone should be disqualified from being a “public figure” for making bad off-the-cuff remarks? | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | There goes half of Congress, half of Hollywood, many historic figures, and a fair share of executives. How can someone be “disqualified” from being a “public figure” anyway!???! | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | tpush 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | > There goes half of Congress, half of Hollywood, many historic figures, and a fair share of executives. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | I mean, yeah. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | doubleunplussed 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | As if the people who replaced them would be any more pure. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Once these are the standards, literally everyone is guilty, and who gets thrown under the bus is a matter of attention rather than guilt. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | yellowapple 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | "Half" is one heck of an understatement. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | snvzz 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Slander, pretty much. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Fortunately, there's this review of the facts[0]. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | [0]: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ | Mar 27 00:50 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-sterling-archermedes.github.io | Low grade "journalists" and internet mob attack RMS with lies. In-depth review. | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:50 | |
| schestowitz | kelnos 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | It's not a great review. First, it focuses on the email exchange about Minksy. I absolutely agree that RMS's words there were blatantly lied about to make him look bad. RMS absolutely should have shut up sooner in that thread, but he didn't say anything terribly objectionable. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | But I stopped reading your link once the author did exactly what he railed on everyone else for doing: misquoting and taking quotes out of context to support their view. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | The author tries to defend RMS's views on pedophilia by pointing out that the Dutch article that RMS links to only talks about reducing the age of consent from 16 to 12, and that wouldn't constitute pedophilia. (A conclusion I'm not sure I agree with, but let's pretend I do.) But, nope, shoulda kept on quoting, because two sentences later there's: "The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | eventually scrap the limit altogether." Nope, not ok. | Mar 27 00:50 |
| schestowitz | Your linked article also repeatedly says things like, "All those questionable quotes seem very reasonable when put in context." Well, I disagree. After reading the full quotes, I still find most of them unreasonable. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:51 | |
| schestowitz | benatkin 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | > disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | A lot of people can't do their jobs if they can't be leaders, depending on how you define it. I think that jobs that don't involve interacting with other people are being automated faster on average than jobs that do. So I think it's better not to be quick to disqualify someone from it. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:51 | |
| schestowitz | pvaldes 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | > disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Well, to be honest the 'imaleader' bar is pretty low at this moment. New leaders should try to distance themselves from most previous leader's behavior. Expectations about public figures are really far from reality. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:51 | |
| schestowitz | colechristensen 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | There are a lot of softer definitions of leader, but we need not go into them as the topic on hand is a man getting a board position at an influential organization. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:51 | |
| schestowitz | salawat 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | >Being unusual does not free you from the burdens of being a decent person... | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | A decent person is a flawed, inherently subjective target. Obviously, from the fact that you're disagreeing with GP's sentiment demonstrates the two of you have different criteria for that. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | >...The kind of person RMS has shown himself to be, regardless of diagnosis, disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | That's kind of funny. RMS has stayed honest to his principles; remained a consistent advocate for the fundamental freedoms of software and computer users; he's taken being made the butt of fantastically, even when i the midst of a highly controversial media circus, advocated for calm, encouraged waiting for the facts to roll in, and stayed true to the tenant of U.S. jurisprudence that someone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | reasonable doubt. That's pretty decent in my book. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | He has odd proclivities. He clashes. He's weird, he doesn't exactly have a mental pole vault down, but he has the courage to challenge what no one else will, and the presence of mind when confronted with new information to change his views, and preserve his earlier errors for posterity. That's also decency. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Frankly, your post strikes me as able-ist. You quite literally made a low-key assertion that the neurodivergent, by virtue of their divergence, don't deserve or should be disqualified from leadership. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | As a functioning neurodivergent in a leadership position myself, I find that patently offensive. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Do you understand just how challenging it can be to just different enough where you see a problem that needs to be stood against when no-one else does? How hard it can be to comprehend and keep up a facade that doesn't come to you naturally? To be successful by everyone else's measure, when objectively speaking you're not just excelling in your field or endeavor, but also doing it without everything everyone else takes for granted, | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | difficulty even recognizing encouragement, no guarantee that any normal gesture of endearment or inclusion amongst normal people will find it's mark, or the pain that comes from having to be 100% up front with people, that you may end up saying something they'll take poorly, and knowing you may not even get a good or fair chance to make amends? That when things do hit the fan, you have to work 140% harder to navigate a world | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | completely unnatural and unituitive to you? | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | I get your message. I reject your assertion, however, that you can measure someone with a disability without taking it into account. I've lived that life. I constantly have to just let things go because "ya just won't get it til you live it." I've fought hard to thrive in a normal world, and with an internal locus of control accepted that more often than not, I'll end up having to be the one to take the high road to maintain the | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | peace. I've had to survive the nights of loved ones being hurt because I just didn't have the energy to take that high road. I've made sacrifices in my personal life to be deemed "appropriate" in everyone else's eyes, and suffered the existential price and inauthenticity, and self-loathing that comes people's poor response to me at my most vulnerable. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Which is why your post strikes such a chord. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | I shouldn't have to. Neither should he. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | RMS asks. He'll actually ask people whether he can stay, Whether they are comfortable, and when those people say yes, and get exposed to the realities of a neurodivergent unmasked, suddenly change their tune. You can argue he doesn't ask often enough, or that he makes folks uncomfortable by the level of directness required, but that he stays authentic tohimself makes him more worthy of being a leader than even I. He's at least up | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | front about it, and doesn't hide the crazy to the point of being destructive like some tend to. He also doesn't judge others for simply being difficult to understand. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | So congratulations. Ya got a rise out of me. | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:51 | |
| schestowitz | konjin 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | So you want no one autistic to ever be in a position of leadership? | Mar 27 00:51 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:52 | |
| schestowitz | davidcbc 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Not every autistic person is an asshole | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:52 | |
| schestowitz | africanboy 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | but every person that falsely accuse an autistic of something he hasn't done, is. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:52 | |
| schestowitz | colechristensen 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Indeed autism poses a challenge for a person in a leadership position. One facet of autism is difficulty in certain social interactions and that difficulty can cause real harm to people. You shouldn't prejudge a person because of a diagnosis, nor should you pre-acquit. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | You can embrace acceptance that people are different and realize that differences make some people better and worse for certain things. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:52 | |
| schestowitz | konjin 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | >You can embrace acceptance that people are different and realize that differences make some people better and worse for certain things. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | I find it astonishing that blatant abelism like yours is acceptable in polite society. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | >You can embrace acceptance that genders are different and realize that differences make some genders better and worse for certain things. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | >You can embrace acceptance that races are different and realize that differences make some races better and worse for certain things. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:52 | |
| schestowitz | _nhynes 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | I thought that the parent post was diplomatic and well hedged, given the sensitivity of the subject material: "one facet [...] certain interactions [...] can cause [...]." Furthermore, the thesis that biology affects fitness is well established and is indeed essential to the process of evolution. Nature cannot be discounted, but, as I think you intend to emphasize, it's not the end of the discussion when humans can do so much at the | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | application layer. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | > [...] acceptance that genders are different [...] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Males are going to have a hard time being wet nurses. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | > [...] races are different [...] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | The San and Inuit people have some very useful adaptations for their respective extreme environments. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | It's kind of challenging to take sweeping offense to a statement phrased using an existential quantifier. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:52 | |
| schestowitz | mdoms 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Is it ableist to suggest that blind people don't make good air traffic controllers, that paralysed people don't make the best bicycle couriers or that a deaf person is perhaps not a suitable music critic? Everyone works within the limitations of our abilities, and some people are dealt difficult hands - but reality doesn't care about your feelings. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:52 | |
| schestowitz | colechristensen 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | The key to not discriminating based on ability is to be sure you are endeavoring to enable a person to do something to the best of their abilities and not insisting that the only people allowed to do something are those who are best suited for it. But there is a separation between "not an ideal candidate for this job" and "not reasonably able to do this job". | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Indeed, sometimes the person with the disability can be better at the job because of what they have learned in an effort to overcome - this is why you don't just slap a label on a person and declare them unfit because they match a description. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | Being tolerant, respecting differences, however you want to put it does not mean being blind to outcomes. | Mar 27 00:52 |
| schestowitz | People sometimes don't get this. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | f1refly 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | You should try to convince people Beethoven's music sucks because he was deaf. There's really no reason a deaf person can't be great with music. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | kaba0 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Irrelevant to the topic, but he only went deaf at the end of his life. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | I believe it is a reasonable assumption that someone would have a hard time composing music if he/she were born deaf. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | austhrow743 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | The context isn't an autistic person being great at people but getting sidelined for the label of autistic so Beethoven seems a bit irrelevant. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | hutzlibu 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Accepting people to be weird is not the same thing as accepting people to be insensitive assholes. Especially not in leadership positions. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | drivingmenuts 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Has RMS ever been formally diagnosed as autistic, or is it just the perception/defense of armchair physicians? | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | He said he isn't autistic in 2008.[1] I haven't seen anything about him getting diagnosed since then. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy... | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.computerworld.com | Asperger's Oxymoron | Computerworld | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | user-the-name 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | How dare you use neurodivergent people as a shield for a sexual harasser. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | How dare you. | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | fctorial 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Which statements? | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | Cthulhu_ 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | Neurodivergence does not excuse you for being called out for toxic behaviour. You're still responsible for your own actions, and to be very blunt, if your neurodivergence is that troublesome you should not be in power. I mean a lot of leaders have a neurodivergent condition where they don't give a shit about their subjects or employees (psychopathy), all they care about is themselves, their coke addiction, and making money for | Mar 27 00:53 |
| schestowitz | themselves and their shareholders. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Just because you're autistic doesn't mean you're not responsible for the things you do or say. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | hedora 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | You know what? Fuck it. I’ve been putting it off too long. I’m installing https://templeos.org/ tonight. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-templeos.org | TempleOS | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | yongjik 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | There's a difference between supporting people struggling with, let's say, alcoholism, and hiring an alcoholic as your head of PR so that he can throw up on people in front of camera. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | rodgerd 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | > But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism tha | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | rms has repeatedly said he does not suffer from autism. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | nobody9999 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | >Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Where, exactly, did RMS do so? This isn't a troll or a "gotcha" either. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | All the claims about RMS doing so are from now public statements by RMS. Please provide (with appropriate context) evidence for the assertion that RMS tried to "legitimize child sexual offenders." | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | If you perform that exercise in good faith, you'll find that there is no evidence that RMS did (or attempted) any such thing. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | I don't know RMS, nor am I associated with any organization with which he is or ever was associated. In fact, I was quite angry when I read the accusations against him. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | But rather than take the word of others, I read his statements, in context, and came to the conclusion that those accusations were both false and sensationalized. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | I have my suspicions as to why those false and sensationalized accusations were made, but I won't do what those who sought to portray Stallman as an advocate for pedophilia, rape and assault did. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | I'll let others make up their own minds as to the motivations of the folks who sought to amplify such claims. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Edit: Clarified the reasons for not airing my suspicions in this comment. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Stallman said pedophilia is "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] He must have meant the act because the paraphilia isn't illegal. He dismissed people who believe children can't consent as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing".[2] He didn't mean adolescents.[3] | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Having sex with a child is an offense in most countries.[4] Offender means someone who commits an offense. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...() | Mar 27 00:54 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallman.org | 2003: May - August Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | [2] https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... | Mar 27 00:54 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.stallman.org | 2006: May - August Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | [3] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201... | Mar 27 00:54 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallman.org | 2019: January - April Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:54 | |
| schestowitz | nobody9999 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | You have ignored and omitted context from each of the statements you linked above. | Mar 27 00:54 |
| schestowitz | And so I can only assume you're not posting in good faith. That's sad, as it's something I really like about HN. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | I had responded in detail to each of the claims you made and expounded on the fact that age of consent is wildly different in all those countries you mention. Sadly, it was all lost with a <ctrl>-w[1] in Firefox. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | In fact, in 20 US states, there is no lower limit on the age of marriage[0], which explicitly allows sexual activity. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | I don't expect anything from you. I'm just disappointed in the (I can only assume deliberate) way you omitted and distorted Stallman's statements to suit your point of view. That's sad. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | [0] https://www.equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us | Mar 27 00:55 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.equalitynow.org | Learn More: Child Marriage in the U.S. - Equality Now | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | [1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1238895 | Mar 27 00:55 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-support.mozilla.org | How i can disable shortcut ctrl+w? | Firefox Support Forum | Mozilla Support | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 3 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | I'm not trying to convince you. You already said no one could reach a different conclusion in good faith. I linked Stallman's comments so other people can decide for themselves. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | Maybe you don't like I only mentioned in passing Stallman said anything about consent. But it's irrelevant to the claim he didn't advocate pedophilia. And now he understands why people say children can't consent.[1] | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | Your source says 20 states have no minimum age "with a parental or judicial waiver". You left out that detail. The minimum age without a waiver is 18 or over in all states.[2] Wikipedia's source says only 13 states don't have a statutory minimum age. And at least 1 of them has a minimum age through case law.[3] | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | This usually affects but doesn't necessarily eliminate the age of consent. California has a law against "any lewd or lascivious act" with a child under 14 for example. Spouses aren't exempt.[4] | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | I didn't mention any countries. But Wikipedia listed only 4 countries with a general age of consent below 13. So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... | Mar 27 00:55 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallman.org | 2019: July - October Political Notes - Richard Stallman | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta... | Mar 27 00:55 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta ) | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | [3] https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-Sta... | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | [4] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... | Mar 27 00:55 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-Sta ) | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio ) | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | nobody9999 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | >So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | You won't get any argument about that from me. Consent is never optional and if an individual isn't able to consent (for whatever reason), then sexual activity with that individual is both inappropriate and, as you pointed out, a crime in most places. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | The discussion as to when a person should be legally able to consent to sexual activity is one that's hotly debated and the laws concerning that varies greatly around the world. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | Such variation causes a great deal of confusion. I can legally have (consensual) sex with a 12 year-old in Brazil, but in the Virgin Islands, I could go to jail. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | But reality is rarely as cut and dried as that. Teenage boys in the US have been branded sex offenders for life because they engaged in consensual sexual activity (and not just sexual acts either. There have been cases where sexting between teenagers has landed children in jail) with teenage girls. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | It's wholly inappropriate, and IMHO, should be a crime for adults to manipulate children into sexual activity. Sadly, that happens all too often. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | On the larger issue, I expect that we are in violent agreement. However, I choose not to demonize someone for having a conversation about the setting of arbitrary age limits WRT the ability to consent, especially given the wide variation in those arbitrary limits. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | It seems clear to me that age limits need to be set to deter the manipulation and abuse of vulnerable individuals (in this case, young people) and it seems unworkable to address those on a case-by-case basis. As such we're back to setting arbitrary limits. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | Simply discussing what those limits should be isn't harmful to anyone, and no one should be demonized for just having that conversation. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | There's a big difference between contemplating what range of ages should be considered appropriate for consent to sexual activity and actively abusing those without the ability to consent. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | To quote the eminent philosopher[0], those two things: | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | "...ain't the same fucking ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport." | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | [0] https://youtu.be/TD1CNqghN7Q?t=170 | Mar 27 00:55 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.youtube.com | Pulp Fiction (1994) Complete Foot Massage Scene - YouTube | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:55 | |
| schestowitz | pseudalopex 2 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | Naming what someone did isn't demonizing them. And you're portraying what he said as something different than it was. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | He didn't engage in conversation. He declared opposing ideas prejudiced and narrow minded. He invented a story about who disagreed with him and mocked them. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | When adolescents can consent legally is arbitrary and varies greatly. The idea children too young for puberty lack the understanding and independence to give consent varies not much at all. Even Stallman seems to understand that now. Prosecuting teenagers for sexting is draconian but a different issue completely. | Mar 27 00:55 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | tw04 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | >were not illegal or intentionally offensive. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | I'm not sure how you can claim to know his intent 18 months after the fact. Do you have an interview or personal relationship to back that claim up? A whole lot of people he directly worked with definitely don't agree with your assessment of his intent. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | I don't believe in the time since that he has acknowledged the comments or suggested he didn't mean to offend or that he understands why it was probably a pretty horrible thing to say in light of all the things we know about Epstein. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Accepting someone for their differences: sure. But to imply Stallman is incapable of acknowledging wrongdoing because of autism while simultaneously being qualified to represent the FSF feels like a reach to me. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | legulere 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | No matter the reasons for his way of thinking, but maybe we shouldn’t have a person whose definition of freedom includes raping children on the board of a organization that promotes software freedom. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | nicklecompte 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | There is absolutely zero evidence Stallman has autism, none whatsoever, and absolutely no evidence that he has any neurological disability. The fact that he once described himself as “borderline autistic” isn’t evidence of anything (except perhaps that Stallman is a jerk who doesn’t care about people who actually have autism). | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | As someone who actually has schizophrenia and struggles with it in the workplace and in society: it honestly makes me sick to see people defend Stallman’s reprehensible behavior with some bullshit about “neurodiversity.” | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | You are throwing an entire population of people under the bus because you’re too immature to accept that RMS is a bad person. It’s pathetic. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | SilverRed 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | In what way is RMS a bad person? He has always seemed pretty honest and well intentioned. Its just he doesn't know when to shut his mouth or which hills are worth dying on. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | nicklecompte 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | [flagged] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | enriquto 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | > He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | LOL'd hard at that. My PhD student used to have a mattress on her office because she liked to take a nap after lunch. She also had her office next to the main door, and left it always open (except when taking the nap), so the mattress was visible to everybody that went into the lab. As far as I can tell nobody felt "threatened" by that, if anything many people said that it was a good idea and that they would like to bring a mattress | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | as well. If you see "implications" in something like that you are truly a deranged person. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | > He’s a sex pest and a creep. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | I find your assessment of the facts really creepy! | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | teddyh 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | > He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | There are no implications. Sleeping in your office at MIT is (or at least was) common, as evidenced by this story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24172245 | Mar 27 00:56 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-news.ycombinator.com | To the future occupants of my office at the MIT Media Lab | Hacker News | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:56 | |
| schestowitz | adolph 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:56 |
| schestowitz | The lead horrifying story is truly "quite gross": | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:57 | |
| schestowitz | higerordermap 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | > He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | As someone who is not native speaker, what does "implications" mean exactly here? Little confused. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:57 | |
| schestowitz | foobar33333 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | I'm guessing they are suggesting that RMS having a mattress in his office is implying (meaning not directly saying but giving someone the idea of) that he wants people to sleep with him on that mattress or implying that it has happened already. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:57 | |
| schestowitz | subjectsigma 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Its strange to me that you think RMS has to "prove" that he's autistic (and therefore deserving of sympathy) - but decades of activism and writing about progressive topics (workers rights, trans rights, ending discrimination, improving IP laws, etc) can get undone in a matter of days by anonymous and uncorroborated accusations, and that's totally fine. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | You want him to get onstage with his therapist or something? | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Look, I'm not exactly Stallman's biggest fan, but everything I read about his firing made it seem like the FSF had a knee-jerk reaction to bad publicity instead of hearing his side of the story and conducting a fair investigation. His reinstatement to the board seems to support the idea that the people there really did want him there but were scared of the mob. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:57 | |
| schestowitz | nicklecompte 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Stallman himself said he wasn’t autistic[1], so this is really a case of his fans inventing a diagnosis to protect someone who doesn’t deserve it, smearing millions of innocent people in the process. It’s really indefensible. And one of the most frustrating things about bullshit like “RMS can’t help himself because of his autism” is that bullshit never goes away no matter how definitively it is debunked. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | I also never suggested that if he did have autism that somehow I would be any more sympathetic. What I am frustrated with is ignorant commenters on Hacker News deciding it’s psychologically easier for them to invent lies and insult people with autism than it is to have an honest reckoning with a hero’s ugly legacy. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | [1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy... | Mar 27 00:57 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.computerworld.com | Asperger's Oxymoron | Computerworld | Mar 27 00:57 | |
| schestowitz | > "During a 2000 profile for the Toronto Star, Stallman described himself to an interviewer as 'borderline autistic,' a description that goes a long way toward explaining a lifelong tendency toward social and emotional isolation and the equally lifelong effort to overcome it," Williams wrote. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | > When I cited that excerpt from the book during the interview, Stallman said that assessment was "exaggerated." | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | > "I wonder about it, but that's as far as it goes," he said. "Now, it's clear I do not have [Asperger's] -- I don't have most of the characteristics of that. For instance, one of those characteristics is having trouble with rhythm. I love the most complicated, fascinating rhythms." But Stallman did acknowledge that he has "a few of the characteristics" and that he "might have what some people call a 'shadow' version of it." | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:57 | |
| schestowitz | skissane 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | > For instance, one of those characteristics is having trouble with rhythm. I love the most complicated, fascinating rhythms | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | One can have no "trouble with rhythm" and yet meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD; one can have immense "trouble with rhythm" and yet not meet those criteria – that's because "trouble with rhythm" is not part of the diagnostic criteria, indeed if you read the DSM-5 section on ASD it never even discusses that topic, "trouble with rhythm" simply isn't part of the DSM-5 definition of ASD. At best, it might be seen as an " | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | associated non-diagnostic symptom", something which may occur in some people with ASD (possibly even at a higher rate than in people without ASD); but it is simply a mistake to reason "person X doesn't have symptom Y hence X cannot have ASD" when Y is not a diagnostic symptom. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | I don't know whether Stallman has ASD or not, but his conclusion that he doesn't seems to be based on incorrect information. Given that, I don't think we should put much weight on it. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:57 | |
| schestowitz | adolph 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | "For instance, one of those characteristics is having trouble with rhythm. I love the most complicated, fascinating rhythms." | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Somehow I can't shake the feeling that his example supporting his confident self-diagnosis paradoxically undercuts it instead. | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:57 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:57 | |
| schestowitz | seba_dos1 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | It's worth noting that we went a long way when it comes to diagnosing autism/ASD/ADD since 2000 or even 2008 and we know that lots of neurodiversive people remained undiagnosed because of mismatching characteristics (especially among young girls). Also, Stallman suffers from hyperacusis, which is clearly described in "Free as in Freedom". Setting a diagnosis is a job for a specialist, but his acknowledgement of "a few of the | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | characteristics" may actually be a much stronger hint than you believe (or even he does, especially if the main example he gives is the one about rhythm :P). | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:58 | |
| schestowitz | subjectsigma 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | Well, that is pretty damning. If he says he's not autistic then people should stop saying he is. I don't think anyone here is trying to insult others with autism, though. | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:58 | |
| schestowitz | nicklecompte 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | They might not be trying to insult people with autism but they certainly succeeded. And “it wasn’t malice, it was reckless indifference and dishonesty” isn’t a good defense. | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | Mar 27 00:58 | |
| schestowitz | gigatexal 4 days ago [–] | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | So being “neurodivergent” gives him a pass to dismiss statutory rape and pubescent teens having sex or being chill with the viewing or collecting depictions of kiddie porn? [1] | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman... | Mar 27 00:58 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-arstechnica.com | Richard Stallman leaves MIT after controversial remarks on rape | Ars Technica | Mar 27 00:58 | |
| schestowitz | (Posting the amp link because haha) | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | I think we should thank Stallman for all the work he’s done in advocating for free software but then let him go and be the crazy old man yelling at the clouds and fade into irrelevancy. | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | reply | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | " | Mar 27 00:58 |
| schestowitz | > Thank you. | Mar 27 03:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Mar 27 03:07 |
| schestowitz | > Now, almost recovered from the medical procedure and almost 100%, I have a few things I want to say. | Mar 27 03:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Mar 27 03:14 |
| schestowitz | > Of course, if I find anything notable, I will submit to you. | Mar 27 03:14 |
| schestowitz | > Also, if you need me for contacts, connections, or any info, please always feel free to reach out. | Mar 27 03:14 |
| schestowitz | RMS: | Mar 27 03:14 |
| schestowitz | > Thank you. | Mar 27 03:15 |
| schestowitz | > | Mar 27 03:15 |
| schestowitz | > My detractors are raging again. | Mar 27 03:15 |
| schestowitz | I responded to it in a 20-minute video 10 minutes ago. It's a WebM file. | Mar 27 03:15 |
| schestowitz | http://techrights.org/2021/03/23/still-libeling-rms/ | Mar 27 03:15 |
| schestowitz | WebM (direct): | Mar 27 03:15 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | Microsoft-Connected (and Funded) Sites Still Distort What Happened and What Richard Stallman Actually Said | Techrights | Mar 27 03:15 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Mar 27 09:25 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Mar 27 09:26 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 09:50 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 09:50 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) | Mar 27 11:45 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Mar 27 11:45 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 11:59 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 11:59 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:2c45:931a:a4da:9843) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 12:42 | |
| *asusbox (~rianne@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:2c45:931a:a4da:9843) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 12:42 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) | Mar 27 12:44 | |
| *asusbox2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Mar 27 12:45 | |
| schestowitz | >> Some other sites have made copies by now (It's FOSS, LWN links to an | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | >> audio), so by the time the official video is out not many people will | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | >> turn to it. | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | > Oh, my, the FSF is screwing this up so badly :-( | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | > | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | > | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | >> My wife watches the RMS talk; my post about this got nearly 100,000 | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | >> viewers (highest since I reported in Red Hat layoffs last summer). | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | > Wow, that's great. | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | > | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | > I wonder if you got a sense of the kind of responses this news is | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | > bringing about. | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | > [...] | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | From what I have seen, there are 2 types of people in the anti-RMS camp: | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | 1. workers of proprietary software #monopolies | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | 2. people misled by the group (1) | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | We know who owns the big media, which compels (2) to act based on misunderstandings. | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | I am trying to shift the discussion beyond all that... | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | Let this become "old news" ASAP*. | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | http://techrights.org/2021/03/23/10-reasons-or-ways-to-support-fsf/ | Mar 27 13:37 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | High-Priority Proposals for the FSF in 2021 | Techrights | Mar 27 13:37 | |
| schestowitz | ____ | Mar 27 13:37 |
| schestowitz | *It's not even news anyway | Mar 27 13:37 |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Mar 27 13:49 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Mar 27 13:49 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 14:16 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 14:16 | |
| *schestowitz has quit (Read error: No route to host) | Mar 27 15:46 | |
| *schestowitz__ (~schestowi@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 15:46 | |
| *schestowitz__ has quit (Changing host) | Mar 27 15:46 | |
| *schestowitz__ (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 15:46 | |
| *ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitz__ | Mar 27 15:46 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Mar 27 15:57 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Mar 27 15:57 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 16:08 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 16:09 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Mar 27 18:28 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Mar 27 18:28 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 18:49 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 18:49 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Mar 27 20:40 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Mar 27 20:40 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 21:12 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 27 21:13 | |
| schestowitz__ | Re: moving daily links activities to RPi? | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | > If it's ok, I would like to begin to move as much of the daily links | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | > activities as possible to your RPi. This would be until the opportunity | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | > arises to get things up and running on TR proper. The reason would be | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | > so that at least the automated links continue to function should | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | > something happen to me (again) in the not so distant future. | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | > | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | > (Devuan Beowulf and Chimaera both function fine on the RPi4 by the way.) | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | I think that for the automated part it would be a good idea. This way I can always set those to arrive earlier, in case news is slow. Right now they depend on the manual part before they appear. | Mar 27 22:21 |
| schestowitz__ | > Hi Roy: | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > I've seen the new posts from Tech Rights. Please keep the | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > counter-pressure going. The FSF needs a new revenue model so there is | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > less dependency on corporate support. I've included, below, my letter to | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > the FSF in which I inadvertently titled Knauth as "Chairman of the | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > Board". :-) | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > I'm really busy right now, filing tax returns for C-Graph, finishing up | Mar 27 22:26 |
| schestowitz__ | > our business plan and finalising the pitch deck (there are 4 versions of | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | > slide 6 and this one should not have included the | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | > gnu.org/s/c-graph/coffee <http://gnu.org/s/c-graph/coffee> link). Just | Mar 27 22:27 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.gnu.org | Donate: We Bank On Coffee - GNU C-Graph! | Mar 27 22:27 | |
| schestowitz__ | > wanted you to know that I'm still in the camp. I don't plan to get burnt | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | > out this time around though! | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | > | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | > Cheers | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | Good evening. | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | Thanks for the support. My wife and I donated to the FSF a few days ago and I intend to write more about it _NOW THAT THE MOB LOST MOMENTUM_ (I felt like it would inflate them if done too early). | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | We took many notes and will have very interesting material in days to comes. | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | By all means I will continue to urge people to donate to the FSF, as I already did several times this weekend. | Mar 27 22:27 |
| schestowitz__ | Attention: Geoffrey Knauth, Chairman | Mar 27 22:28 |
| schestowitz__ | Dear Members of the Board: | Mar 27 22:28 |
| schestowitz__ | Re: The Reinstatement of Richard Stallman to the FSF Board | Mar 27 22:28 |
| schestowitz__ | I read, with enthusiasm, reports on RMS’ return to the board of the Free Software Foundation. Predictably, the | Mar 27 22:28 |
| schestowitz__ | calls to reverse his reinstatement resound round the Web: | Mar 27 22:28 |
| schestowitz__ | “Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software | Mar 27 22:28 |
| schestowitz__ | community for a long time”.[1] | Mar 27 22:28 |
| schestowitz__ | I agree that RMS is dangerous. He is a clear and present danger to those corporate vultures who - threatened by | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | the ascendancy of free software over their proprietary strongholds - sponsored the 2019 attack that cancelled his | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | presidency. MIT professors reciprocated by cancelling his position as “Visiting Scientist” pretending that they | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | didn’t know how to read. Should we be surprised that the most prominent of the calls to exile RMS from the very | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | movement he founded is hosted by a Microsoft server? | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | Just who is abusing women? The devices employed by the cancel vultures include abusing women, female | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | faces (who don’t code) exploited to advocate against RMS’ so-called “misogyny”. The reason sexist jokes are | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | embedded in hacker culture is because like puns, music and sci-fi, they are part of the hacker identity. To quote | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | Madeline Albright “[f]rankly, this is not cojones” - the FSF caved in to the vultures; failed to rise up!! | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | I am appalled that Alexandre Oliva, was asked to resign on account of his fundraising message suggesting that | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | prospective members advise the FSF of their interest in having RMS reinstated. RMS will need allies by his side, | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | not only to counter attacks by the vultures, but to realise a vision for the future of the FSF, GNU and the Free | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | Software Movement itself. | Mar 27 22:29 |
| schestowitz__ | > The automated links have been growing slowly so I think the combined | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > size would stay well below 4MB per month for the foreseeable future. | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > Only two months at a time would be needed in the cache there for the | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > current workflow. The long-term archiving would still be done on TR. | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > I will try to set it up that the work flow, for now, is as it is but | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > that the fetching of automated links and de-duplication occur on the | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > RPi. The modification, for now, would be that it would be triggered | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > upon upload of the manual links or at a certain time of day, whichever | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > happens first. It will have to trap or lock things so that if I miss | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | > the deadline, the manual links are forced into the next day's collection. | Mar 27 23:36 |
| schestowitz__ | I like the idea. Sometimes I'm left with no links to post. They help me take "breaks" from writing... and reading instead, clutter-free. | Mar 27 23:36 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.