Most active commenters
  • fsflover(6)
  • shadowgovt(5)

←back to thread

The Stallman Report

(stallman-report.org)
197 points pkilgore | 17 comments | | HN request time: 0.767s | source | bottom
1. o999 ◴[] No.41847507[source]
Puberty was considered the adulthood age for mellinia, that is suitable for marriage (and is still considered so in several places).

Why is this a very controversial topic?

replies(4): >>41847724 #>>41857151 #>>41872691 #>>41892762 #
2. shadowgovt ◴[] No.41847724[source]
Taboos are often controversial.

And if he were a sociologist or anthropologist, published in the field with any reputation at all in it, who could speak on that complex dynamic over history and the interplay between environment, tradition, human biology, and social context, he might have a prayer of using reason to move the needle on the taboos in his own culture. But he's not. He's a professor in another field speaking way out on the deep end of a field he doesn't have the credentials to be taken seriously in.

We all have freedom of speech, but academic professors are expected to uphold a level of rigor that most people are not, and his writings on this topic harm his credibility and therefore, indirectly, his ability to advocate for free software.

replies(1): >>41848998 #
3. fsflover ◴[] No.41848998[source]
But does he have a right for his personal opinion in a free country?
replies(2): >>41849594 #>>41867938 #
4. shadowgovt ◴[] No.41849594{3}[source]
Of course.

But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise.

For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbled in neurobiology, which was well outside his area of expertise---his oft-repeated "reptile brain" theory basically doesn't match to a contemporary understanding of neuro-anatomy and didn't when he wrote Cosmos either. But because he shared it from his platform and wrote a book on the topic, "humans are a fish brain wrapped in a lizard brain wrapped in a monkey brain" is an oft-repeated untruth.

We hold those whose reputations and positions are built on knowledge more accountable to be right when they speak than we hold others. Stallman chooses to exercise his freedom of speech, and we choose to hold him accountable for his position on topics that have real consequences for people who aren't him.

replies(1): >>41873118 #
5. madahin ◴[] No.41857151[source]
Because children can begin puberty super early [1] Because puberty begin on average at 10-12 [2]

The fact that some countries/cultures are okay with child marriage doesn't mean that it's not absolutely disgusting.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

replies(1): >>41861563 #
6. fsflover ◴[] No.41861563[source]
It doesn't mean that discussing it must result in a cancellation of a person though.
replies(1): >>41892771 #
7. ◴[] No.41867938{3}[source]
8. seanw444 ◴[] No.41872691[source]
Because the arbitrary age we picked, by which almost nobody is yet fully physically nor mentally developed, is definitely the correct one.

Non-sarcastically: Overton Window

9. fsflover ◴[] No.41873118{4}[source]
> and we choose to hold him accountable

Is this your euphemism for "cancelling"? Go to the court if there's a crime.

replies(1): >>41875755 #
10. shadowgovt ◴[] No.41875755{5}[source]
Canceling is not about criminal behavior. It's about the gap between the regulation of behavior the law puts on us all and individual's decisions about what they will tolerate.

Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back.

... Besides, nobody in this story (including, I surmise, you) is actually against cancelling. Avoiding closed-source software because it doesn't align with the Four Freedoms is just cancelling. Cancelling is front-and-center in Free Software's toolbox.

replies(1): >>41882255 #
11. fsflover ◴[] No.41882255{6}[source]
Cancelling is punishing of an individual by the crowd without a fair process. It should not exist. Choosing your software is not cancelling.
replies(1): >>41882371 #
12. shadowgovt ◴[] No.41882371{7}[source]
If you can slide a conceptual wedge between the free choice to use GNU over Microsoft because you believe in the Four Freedoms and the free choice to not work with FSF until they oust Stallman because you believe he's a creep, go for it.

It's the same thing: personal choice intended to influence the shape of the world.

replies(1): >>41899309 #
13. deepl_derber ◴[] No.41892771{3}[source]
I agree, which is why it's fortunate that no one is or has suggested "cancelling" anyone for "discussing" things.

The report's author(s) are advocating for removing RMS from positions of influence and authority from the free software community because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality, harasses women, and is a shitty human being.

Pretending that anyone ever has been jettisoned from their position or public life for "discussing" something - or that that's what's happening here - is insanely disingenuous.

replies(2): >>41903859 #>>41904632 #
14. fsflover ◴[] No.41899309{8}[source]
> and the free choice to not work with FSF

This is your right, just like choosing the software. However, trying to force everybody to stop supporting FSF or to cancel Stallman without a fair process is very different and wrong.

replies(1): >>41899953 #
15. shadowgovt ◴[] No.41899953{9}[source]
Who's being forced? Collective action isn't forcing; it's voluntary choice.
16. fsflover ◴[] No.41903859{4}[source]
> because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality

He isn't. All your other accusations are baseless too.

17. mikrotikker ◴[] No.41904632{4}[source]
Why are you lying?