Hacker News Reader

Comment by scrumper | Hacker News Reader

> The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman was fired...

Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes:

> The goals Selam G. seeks to advance are good ones. Institutions like MIT need to closely consider their past and present treatment of women. People at those institutions, and perhaps even Stallman himself, need to have their worst impulses checked, or possibly even be removed altogether.

He was arguing for something like a due process in firing Stallman, not for not firing him.

View on HN

> Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes:

I feel confident with my assessment. He showed no indication that he understood the current movement to hold powerful men accountable for their actions. For example, where's the due process for the women Stallman excluded by his horrible behaviour for decades?

Stallman went down for being a creepy perv for decades. He should have gone down for one of the many lines he crossed before today. Eventually, when you give a creep enough passes he'll say something so creepy it's indefensible, Yet here you are trying.

Since when did anyone ever expect due process when being fired? This is a world where you can be fired for showing up 30 seconds late because of a road closure.

Is that the way it should be? And if not, are you saying that there's no point in arguing for something better?

Maybe not, but this seems like a terrible way to advocate for something better. Thousands of people get unjustly fired every day for much worse reasons than this. Why is this one the one to fight?

Right! There's millions of injustices in this world and you're fighting for a misogynist who has pushed women out of tech for decades? What are your priorities?

I suspect it’s because the typical programmer can’t really put themselves in the shoes of a fast food worker who gets fired for refusing to clock out and keep working. But an eccentric techie with uncomfortable and unconventional views on sex hits way too close to home.

Should point out that we're both forgetting that Stallman actually resigned, though who knows under what pressure. So this entire debate is pretty moot. But for the sake of argument, we'll say he was fired.

So it seems like we agree that this particular aspect (snap firings) of the USA sucks. So why is this _not_ the one to fight? If we both think the core issue is a problem, it doesn't seem intellectually honest for one of us to say that a specific instance of that general concept doesn't count because the dude at the heart of it is scummy.

If you can build a strong and convincing argument that his termination is wrong, it'd be trivial to apply that argument to the case of the fast food worker. And therefore have a better shot at improving their lot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com