Richard Stallman and the Fall of the Clueless Nerd | Hacker News Reader

Richard Stallman and the Fall of the Clueless Nerd

wired.com

33 pointsjanvdberg48 comments

Here's a probably-apocryphal story about San Francisco. The cultural tolerance and open-mindedness the city was know for happened because at some point in history the need for dockworkers was way, way stronger than any superficial differences that employers might otherwise discriminate over if the labor pool was larger. At a time when discrimination was the open and explicit norm, that lack of exclusion grew out into the societal attitudes across the city.

Tech was once a place where we lived with weirdos ranging from unconventional appearance all the way to downright unpleasant to work with. There was a lot of work to get done, and goddamn we were going to figure out how to get it done with the people we had.

Fast forward to the 2010's. We hire for conformity across the board, some places even acknowledge the strictness of that part of their selection criteria and call it "culture fit." It's a very dictionary-definition-but-not-political-alignment conservative time. The outliers have all gotta go.

We realized that lone hackers aren't actually the tremendous geniuses who can accomplish dark magic on their own.

The profession has changed. We no longer build low-level constructs that are leaps and bounds ahead of prior versions, but incrementally take existing building blocks to find solutions for problems that are ever more social in nature.

Having worked with several lone-wolf hackers, I am glad we are no longer afraid of pointing out shitty behavior.

I tried to write that post about contemporary standards with wide enough room to avoid singling out one archetype and proceeding to disparage them by contemporary standards.

But you found it; as it turns out everyone on the spectrum from "unconventional appearance all the way to downright unpleasant to work with" is a cartoon-cutout "lone wolf". Ya got me.

The only ones who are being singled out in recent times are those who are downright unpleasant to work with. I still see all the same quirky characters getting well-paying jobs.

> Instead of considering the pain of a young person treated in such a manner [...]

I find it really odd this myoptic view: he is defending a coworker, which is not alive anymore to defend himself. He did not say the victim is lying, he is talking about how Minsky possibly didn't do anything wrong himself.

Is everyone aware there was a protest against the ones involved at MIT (including Minsky)? How would you feel if someone protested against you if you were innocent?

> [...] opining that 14-year-old girls have free will [..]

Not in the US, but that does not apply to a good number of countries is Western Europe, South America, etc.

Now, I do not agree with everything Stallman said, but he has the right to be wrong. Why can't he be wrong? Is he not entitled to an opinion which does not conform to the majority?

Silencing people we don't agree with is a slippery slope, specially when appealing to some absolute morality standard. I see this happening too much lately, including here.

>Now, I do not agree with everything Stallman said, but he has the right to be wrong. Why can't he be wrong? Is he not entitled to an opinion which does not conform to the majority?

You're really asking two questions here. Is he entitled to his opinions? Sure. Is he entitled to maintain his position while holding those opinions? Different question.

Or, to put it another way, is someone entitled to having any opinion without facing any consequences?

>Silencing people we don't agree with is a slippery slope, specially when appealing to some absolute morality standard.

The "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, but more importantly neither you nor anyone else expressing similar views actually believes what you wrote. If Stallman had written, say, that he believes Jews are subhuman vermin and need to be exterminated, there would be zero question he should be fired and neither you nor anyone else who isn't an actual Nazi would be leaping to defend his right to express that opinion.

There is a fundamental difference in your example in the fact that it calls for action/violence.

If he had said, for instance, that every child needs to be molested, that would be more in line with your example. And that would no longer be acceptable.

Outright racism and similar views are indeed less tolerated nowadays, but this is a whole discussion by itself. I'll just add that, from my POV, they cross the line from the "opinion realm", which together with a number of other arguments justifies non-tolerance of these views.

So to anyone who hasn't read the actual email chain, here is a link.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...

Most. Of the press reporting is absolutely terrible with regards to accuracy. Please read it first before passing judgement.

Nerds geeks and dorks like me have never had an easy time in life. Now we have mobs to consider.

“I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”

If an employee at a major company sent out the previous sentence in a "company-all" email would he still be employed, after having been given a "talking to" regarding comments he made about pedophilia several years earlier?

If nerds, geeks, and dorks think that the following series of events is evidence of a "mob mentality", they need to retreat from public discourse:

1. A student posts a link promoting an upcoming event protesting the way that donations from Epstein were covered up by MIT administrators and calling for their resignation.

2. Richard Stallman chimes in defending Minsky. Saying, among other things, that rape and sexual assault require force (they don't).

3. Several commenters take offense to that.

4. Instead of shutting up, Stallman DOUBLES DOWN.

5. Commenters rightly point out that discussing matters like this in a public forum is unprofessional and may tarnish the reputation of CSAIL.

6. Stallman resigns when people start looking into the matter and find all of the pedophile stuff on his website.

> (they don't)

He seems to be complaining about terminology (it is Stallman after all). To give an analogous example:

Person A: Minsky downloaded some music and is thus a pirate and robber.

Stallman: "robbing" requires force and this did not happen on the high seas. You are only using these words to make Minsky seem violent and dangerous in addition to describing the allegation. I think that word choice is not okay.

Stallman has very strong "opinions" about what words should mean and which ones should be used, even if the rest of the world disagrees, and always doubles down.

We are living in the easiest timeline for nerds, geeks, and dorks. Once nerds became associated with $$$, things have looked up immensely. In many cases now, it is the nerds, geeks, dorks who are the bullies in society.

We work for free https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20995273

No one is forcing anyone to maintain, contribute or create open source projects.

I sure as hell don't.

When I was young I'd get beat up and called names for being a nerd. I was a social pariah, and intellectual interest was something children literally looked down upon.

The vast majority of my equally-nerdy friends eventually grew out of their social quirkiness and became hugely successful and functional adults, and their curiosity is respected and regarded, and when it's not, their profitable profession and social standing is.

There have always been mobs to consider because you just _can't_ say whatever you want without considering the consequences, and because we strive towards a world where we're more aware of the hurt we cause by what we say and do.

It is in fact the best period in the history of humanity to be a nerd.

Nerds aren't a monolith. Generally having friends with diverse viewpoints will round out one's problematic takes. Maybe it's best to try out ideas in a smaller setting with people who care about your growth, rather than posting to an echo chamber in the first place.

the article talks ". His inability to understand the hurt that comes from insensitivity "

but the title is fall of the clueless nerd?

Didn't read the article but where's the contradiction in your quote? Inability to understand and clueless are close enough.

e: My mistake, clarified below.

The contradiction is that "clueless nerd" is pretty insensitive, so for an article preaching about the hurt that comes from it, well, sounds weird.

Oh that's what the commenter was pointing out, my mistake.

Hey, no bad tactics, only bad targets.

In fairness, most headlines are chosen by editors and not article writers.

Failing to blindly follow the herd is not being insensitive.

I feel like his defending pedophilia in cases where a "child consents" is a good argument for why sometimes the herd is right. His words are insensitive to those who are victims of pedophilia because it minimizes the impact and implicates the victim as being potentially receptive to the act.

Here we are... Proving my point.

He expressed opinions which are not insensitive. It is totalitarian force people to only express the 'correct' opinion on an issue.

In fact the opinions he expressed are actually the law in some Western countries. I.e. that someone below the age of consent may be able to consent to sex and that, as a consequence, sexual activity with someone below the age of consent is not automatically rape though an offence.

There is a crucial difference between discussing an issue in general terms and targeting a specific individual who was a victim of that issue. Everything is being taken personally these days when it should not.

I agree with you that any topic should be able to be discussed, but I think a modicum of forethought and perhaps a higher level of self-discipline should be employed when discussing sensitive topics such as pedophilia, because these subjects don't exist in a vacuum. RMS gave no real provable basis for his statement- he was just vomiting a baseless opinion, which he has every right to do. People, in turn, have every right to call his opinion callous and stupid. To his credit, he did reportedly change his view after enough people explained to him why children could not be expected to hold the responsibility of consenting to sex with an adult.

> RMS gave no real provable basis for his statement

I'm not sure what specific statement you have in mind.

However what I wrote before, i.e. that someone below the official age of consent may be able to give informed consent is simply the reality.

Reality is not black and white and does not conform to a specific world-view. Accusing about someone of "vomitting a baseless opinion" is not very inducive to discussion.

> In fact the opinions he expressed are actually the law in some Western countries.

Can you name any Western country that allows people under 18 to be prostitutes? Especially if those people are the victims of coercive force?

> I.e. that someone below the age of consent may be able to consent to sex and that, as a consequence, sexual activity with someone below the age of consent is not automatically rape though an offence.

Rape is a word defined in law and in English language. An activity may not meet the legal definition while meeting the English language definition.

Saying that Minsky's actions were not so wrong because really it's not assault if violence wasn't used and that this rape isn't really rape is obviously problematic, especially when paired with Stallman's previous comments about child sexual abuse (familial abuse isn't a problem; willing child sexual abuse isn't harmful; images of child sexual abuse are fine).

That is not what Stallman said.

Yes it is.

Here he says the word "assaulting" is wrong:

> 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.

And here he says it's wrong because assault means force or violence:

> 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.

Here's where he denies this was rape:

> I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.

This is in response to someone saying that having sex with someone who is 17 in the Virgin Islands is rape.

Having sex with someone who is consenting, and is able to give informed consent, is neither assault nor rape "in the English language".

In law it depends on the jurisdiction. As I mentioned, having sex with someone underage does not necessarily constitute rape though is usually constitutes "sexual assault".

The USA are rather conservative with both a relatively 'old' age of consent and statutory rape laws. This can lead to ridiculous situations like labeling someone "rapist" just for having consensual sex with a 17 year old...

One issue, which might have been part of Stallman's point, is that people tend to want to use only black and white terms in all circumstances, even when the reality is much more nuanced.

No, he didn’t. Read his email. The context here is critical.

He’s simply saying that the young woman’s claim, who was acting as a “masseuse”, is that Epstein directed her to engage in sexual activity with Minsky.

But Epstein didn’t direct her to do this in front of Minsky, so Minsky likely had no idea that Epstein coerced her. So, we shouldn’t assume that Minsky is a rapist if he had no idea that she was not willing.

If I threatened to kill a woman if she did not show up where I knew that you would be, seduce you, and have sex with you, does that make you a rapist? It’s certainly wrong, which Stallman acknowledged, while also saying Epstein should be in jail, but it’s not clear that you’re culpable. I think that would make me the criminal, not you.

It hasn’t even been established that Minsky accepted her advances. Her only claim is that Epstein directed her to do it, not that it happened. A witness said Minsky declined her advances. Minsky is no longer alive. So given what we know, it is not appropriate to say Minsky raped or assaulted anyone, whether the act even happened or not.

Arguing about which definition should be used for something is a common theme in Culture Wars, but I think it's a pretty unproductive one.

(The whole reason people argue about those definitions is so that they can get their preffered associations/affect attached to a particular thing by pulling it under the umbrella of a particular word. This is done to manipulate the ignorant masses who can't separate connotation and affect from denotation.)