Hacker News Reader

https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

Thank you that was a very good and informative read.

I will also tell you that research shows that the vast majority of sexual harassment and bullying complaints against powerful men go ignored for years. Then something happens that attracts wide public attention and some action is taken. At which point there's the usual choir chants of "witch hunt", "PC mob", and "this could happen to literally anyone" (the fact is that it rarely "happens" even to very real harassers), but invariably you find that the trigger, which may not be disastrous on its own, usually follows years of not decades of issues.

You can start here: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

> You can start here: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

Start with what exactly? What is this in response to?

This is a follow-up post of the blogger that started the RMS witch hunt.

According to his closest colleagues, there was no witch hunt, but a high-profile incident that drew attention to literally decades of problems: https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

Sure there wasn't, no Vice and Forbes articles, no shitstorm all over Twitter and Mastodon, no angry blogposts full of bile spreading lies, no decades of problems suddenly drawing attention, no long HN threads. I must have imagined it.

Well, people actually familiar with the situation say that you have (at least the witch hunt aspect), so unless you know better than them, I'd say yeah.

According to those actually familiar with the case, certain recent actions by Stallman drew attention to his problematic decades-long behavior, which finally resulted, after decades of ignored complaints, in his dismissal.

There's no denying the well-established fact that the vast majority of cases of inappropriate behavior goes unpunished; in a few cases, some media attention can lead to action. The percentage of bad actors (and according to those closest to him, Stallman is a bad actor) that are finally disciplined remains, sadly, very low, but it's a start.

There are always hysterics who cry about a PC mob or witch hunts, but those who are interested in the facts, take the time to Google for relevant studies, consider the numbers, and as those shrill claims just don't square with the facts, so are best ignored.

This article is complete garbage. I couldn't even read it in its entirety.

> If there are a large number of people in the United States who think that child pornography and sexual intercourse with minors should be legalized, this is the first I’m hearing of it

He never even said that!

This is just another SJW warrior pissed off about the fact that the reality differs from the fiction she has created for herself. People disagree, people are rude, and you WILL be offended sometimes, in the real world. And learning to deal with it is part of being an adult.

"[Possession of child pornography] should be legal as long as no one is coerced."

What do you think he really meant when he stated this?

It can mean for example, that having CP on your PC although highly immoral, should not be punished by law,reserving that fate for distributors and especially creators. This is an arbitrary distinction by law and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it.

A similar argument is already in practice in many places where illegal drugs possession is not punished (up to certain limits) but drug production is. Or when offering prostitution is not punished but requesting it is. Mind I am not saying they are exactly the same, I only showing that legal distinction is arbitrary and people should be free to comment on it.

> and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it.

I think this is the crux of the difference here. I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever. That's an absurd proposition to me. Maybe that's why I seem to be talking past people about this.

>I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever.

Which is irrelevant, as the parent didn't say that "expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever".

He just said that having that particular opinion should not have any consequences.

That said,

>That's an absurd proposition to me.

What exactly is absurd about free speech and no consequences for expressing whatever opinion (even "Hitler's ideas were good") -- except when opinion becomes action?

Obviously nobody includes "people shouldn't dislike you for your opinions", or "your readership should not change for your opinions" when they say about no consequences.

They mean: not getting thrown to jail, not loosing your job, especially if it's totally unrelated with your opinions, not being ex-communicated, etc...

And if friends and family could also get sticks out of their asses, and e.g. be OK with you having a different opinion (e.g. being atheist or a Democrat or a Republican or whatever), and just judge you on what you actually do, that would be great too...

(of course you shouldn't write a post about how "X company is crap" if you work for X and not expect to get fired")

> (of course you shouldn't write a post about how "X company is crap" if you work for X and not expect to get fired")

I'll use this as my example for why I think it's absurd. Why do you think you shouldn't write that post? It's just an opinion, right?

If I understand you correctly then you're saying that there are some opinions that you could expect to be fired for expressing, even if they are completely legal to express. I agree with that.

Our definitions of what you can expect to have consequences however seems very different. And that's fine.

>Why do you think you shouldn't write that post? It's just an opinion, right?

Au contraire, I think you should write that post if you're of that opinion. And I think it would be beneficial to society to write it too.

What I wrote is that you shouldn't write it "and not expect to get fired" -- because that's what will probably happen. If it was to me, that shouldn't happen either. But a company is a private business, and the law allows them to fire people at will (I'd change that too, like we have it in Europe).

I stated though that you should not "lose your job [for your opinions], especially if it's totally unrelated with your opinions" (the job being unrelated to what you spoke, that is).

But surely you can see how that can become absurd.

Extreme example: An employee at your company keeps a blog about how having sex with children is perfectly fine, how black people are all stupid and how jews should be exterminated because Hitler had the right idea. Also that almost all accusations of rape are false because all women are lying bitches. All perfectly legal opinions that don't relate directly to his work.

Is it your position that none of this should have any effect on his position?

It depends on wether they act on it or not: do they have sex with children, treat black people at work as if they were stupid, or have problems working with jewish colleagues? Do their biases affect the workplace? To be clear, I believe that all our biases are present in the workplace, which is why the philosophy behind separation of power should apply, somehow. That being said, I'd never campaign or ask for the firing of a colleague because they held some racist ideas (I'm black), unless their actions or our interactions reflected said racist ideas.

I want to live in a free society where it's okay to be wrong.

And presumably you'd happily send your child to a pedophile's classroom as long as he only blogs about how pedophilia is completely fine?

> nobody should face any consequence for having it.

Nobody ever faces any consequences for having any opinion, but many people very often face consequence for expressing some opinions, in some forums and under certain circumstances. For example, politician are commonly voted out of office, losing their job in the process, for expressing some opinions, and here in the UK even ordinary party members are commonly expelled for expressing some opinions. So even in free democracies, we accept and even expect certain consequences for voicing certain opinions, by certain people, in certain forums, and under certain circumstances. The decision of what those consequences are, and who, why and when they would face them is often made by a particular relevant institution. So it's a matter of degree, not of principle.

> People disagree, people are rude, and you WILL be offended sometimes, in the real world. And learning to deal with it is part of being an adult.

This is a huge misunderstanding of the problem with "offensive".

Suppose that at a work meeting, I, the boss or a well-respected engineer, say, "French people are stupid, and their work is subpar; also, they're liars," or something of the sort. At the meeting none of the French employees are present and no one tells them about it. They are not offended personally at all. However, the damage of this offense is not diminished in the least by their absence. It creates a certain dynamic where their colleagues will disrespect them. They're feelings aren't hurt, but the harm against them is real. How are they supposed to "learn to deal with that," being adults and all?

This is what we SJWs mean when we say "offensive," or, more precisely, this is the main issue for us. Not that someone's feelings are hurt, but that they are diminished by the social dynamics that certain statements and behaviors set in motion.

i loved the line when she is returning home in her car, she isnt listening to songs or podcast but sitting in complete silence.

The ability to brush off the words of a respected superior (parent, manager, supervisor, etc...) is not equally distributed in the population. Female students have a disadvantage over male students, especially in fields that are male-dominated (such as CS or Physics), LGBT members are even more disadvantaged. The harm is in the compounding of a hostile environment, and when the hostility comes from a person of considerable power such as the famous Stallman, the hit is all the worse. Don't take my word for it, there is a lot of research on these social dynamics.

> Don't take my word for it, there is a lot of research on these social dynamics.

Well unless you cite the research, the only option you've given us is to take your word.

> The ability to brush off the words of a respected superior (parent, manager, supervisor, etc...) is not equally distributed in the population. Female students have a disadvantage over male students, especially in fields that are male-dominated (such as CS or Physics), LGBT members are even more disadvantaged. The harm is in the compounding of a hostile environment, and when the hostility comes from a person of considerable power such as the famous Stallman, the hit is all the worse. Don't take my word for it, there is a lot of research on these social dynamics.

So the answer is that a respected person may not ever have any opinion that can be construed as offensive ever in their entire life? I mean in this case Stallman didn't even go to any effort to spread these ideas around. The fact that they are even known is due to the articles written about a few posts spread over the last couple decades.

Also I'm a little unclear about your references to female students and LGBT members...weren't the posts that people took offense to mostly regarding pedophelia? Did I miss his other writings?

>The ability to brush off the words of a respected superior (parent, manager, supervisor, etc...) is not equally distributed in the population. Female students have a disadvantage over male students, especially in fields that are male-dominated (such as CS or Physics), LGBT members are even more disadvantaged.

They might have been in the 70s and 80s. In 2019, if a LGBT member makes some threats, the institution will usually cave. In the old times people could lose their job if they were found out to be LGBT. Today people lose their jobs if they are accused from an LGBT perspective.

Pretending the power dynamics are the same as in decades past is hypocritical. Parents, relatives, and rural societies can still be (and are) cruel against LBGT people. Major companies, institutions, the law, modern media, etc? Not so much.

Too many people champion LGBT rights, feminism, etc today only because it's the default in "polite society" and the circles of power. If it was 1970 they would have followed the then mainstream treatment of women/LGBT, either like sheep or to their advantage -- as in fact, the majority (their parents) then did. Doesn't matter if they're different people than their parents -- the hypocrisy and the mechanism is the same is the same.

Only few courageous people have written/spoke out for decades about such matters, and now people come and use them to pursue careers, or gain followers -- and even more so, many use those causes to be cruel to people and gain power and social capital, the same way they would use their privilege against women/LGBT back in the day...

It's like Kurt Cobain seeing all the BS jocks that put him down sing "Smells like teen spirit"...

As for the "lots of research", in social studies it takes time to catch up with society (and it follows what brings in grants). There was lots of research back in the day too...