Comment by champagnois | Hacker News Reader

Comment by champagnois | Hacker News Reader

There is always a risk of attempted out-of-context cancellation for people who attempt to discuss the quirks of philosophy, law, or policy regarding taboo subjects.

I learned last night that Richard M. Stallman (RMS) has articles about him on Vice that are narrowly focused on some of his weighing in on the Epstein case.

While I cannot defend what RMS may have said just as I cannot defend what Schrodinger may have done, I still wish to highlight the absolute toxicity of taboo topics.

On the one hand: These sorts of things become the narrow fixation of moral crusaders who pursue their cause to the extremes.

On the other hand: Outsiders weighing in can be caught in the crossfire and find themselves cancelled by the crusade if they start asking questions or trying to discuss the wider meta of, "What defines this rule? Is it not possible that they are innocent? Does this rule help society? What of false positives?"

... As a result, outsiders know to avoid discussing the moral crusade or the rule for fear of being on the recieving end of the legacy destroying mob's righteous wrath.

We all self censor and avoid asking critical questions to improve our understandings of these events. We live in an age where the devil's advocate as well as the devil are both put on trial.

> I learned last night that Richard M. Stallman (RMS) has articles about him on Vice that are narrowly focused on some of his weighing in on the Epstein case.

If you mean https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient..., please note that that article misconstrues what was said.

Both the headline and the article claim that Stallman said Giuffre was "entirely willing;" a read of the provided emails shows otherwise. He said that she probably appeared to Minsky to be "entirely willing;" that Minsky would have been unaware of coercion, not that there was none.

There are absolutely things to object to in what he said, but we should be objecting to what he said, not the words some (apparently) shoddy journalists are putting in his mouth.

The bigger picture was that these moral crusades create an environment in which few are willing to openly discuss the facts, what lines are crossed, their thoughts on those lines, etc.

I abstain from defending RMS, but it is amazing to me how damaging these moral crusades are. I wonder if my feelings currently are similar to those of the public audience during a witch trial. If the imaginary members of the audience stood up to say that the witchness is a bit absurd, they too would be accused of some relationship to dark magic, etc.

Don't you feel, to some extent, worried that by discussing Stallman's comments and their nuance, you yourself may one day be roasted in the same way the RMS is?

Its incredible.

Is this a pet peeve with little to do with the article itself or are you actually reacting to what is going on in this comment section where a discussion is taking place of:"but is this wrong?"

All the while ignoring that Schrodinger had a diary in which he condemned his own actions and was aware of the hurt he was doing.

This just screams bias.

Less about Schroedinger or Stallman, more of a meta commentary on the way people talk about these things combined with the way others threaten to make it a crusade against commenters.

I find these sorts of engagements interesting at the meta level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com