Here’s what I don’t get: why are you all so concerned about what happens to this guy? He didn’t get lynched. He’s not going to prison. He had a comfortable life and he will continue to have a comfortable life. Why does this asshole deserve so much of your time and energy?
- His "crime" was to play down an accusation on an acquaintance by arguing on the sense of words. It might have been insensitive (use your own judgement), but it's hardly heinous.
- As a mirror question, why waste so much time and energy trying to pull down someone that merely committed social gaffe? If people really have to hunt witches (they don't), they are some much scarier ones running around. Myself, I think it has to do with Stallman being an easy target.
Sorry, I’m going to call assholes assholes. I don’t know why people get so upset at swear words. People are saying all sorts of heinous shit in these comments, but apparently this is fine as long as you don’t use one of the Seven Deadly Words.
Your mirror question is missing the decades of context that led up to this.
Edit: I should note that “asshole” isn’t a random insult. It’s highly relevant. People get fired for being assholes while at work. For jobs that involve interacting with other people (which is just about all of them, including Stallman’s) this is not only factual, but perfectly reasonable. Asshole loses job, what’s the big deal? The only surprising thing is that it took this long!
Because of something called justice? It was really ridiculous how he was treated while he didn't do anything wrong. Uninformed masses will still see this guy as a bad person for years to come for no other reason that the media is lying to them.
He has done lots wrong over many years to many people. The incident that caused the furor was the last straw because it was tone-deaf to the context.
Nobody wishes him ill, but he has no place as a leader in the free software movement if it is to flourish. Of course, he can participate, and as president of GNU that might be an OK level of participation.
Do not expect us to believe he has been treated unfairly, however: he has been treated the same way any other employee at MIT would be treated, and as the FSF has seen fit given its organisational goals.
> He has done lots wrong over many years to many people.
[citation needed] and distraction. So what if he didn't do anything of what he is currently accused of, I am sure he has done lots of wrong before (of which I am going to list exactly nothing)?
> he has been treated the same way any other employee at MIT would be treated.
He has resigned to shield MIT from public pressure after lots of lies have appeared about things he hasn't said.
This is false dichotomy. The media spend incredible amount of energy destroying this guy for no apparent reason. It's not more then fair the same amount of energy is spend helping him for the injustice that was done.
Beside it's not like the media is lacking in energy to spend on inciting social justice mobs.
I don’t think it’s a false dichotomy at all. This same community discusses other things, far worse things, and we can compare them. When this community discusses victims of harassment who get fired for reporting it, there isn’t nearly this much time and energy spent on it. When an article about a drone strike blowing up an Afghan wedding made the front page recently, there wasn’t this much outrage. Uber covers up actual crimes and the discussion degenerates into arguments about whether there’s any duty to report crimes to the police. People get fired all the time for far smaller infractions and everybody just shrugs.
Why does this community care so much about what happens to this asshole?
This asshole? Without "this asshole" the world would look vastly different today. This guy isn't even an asshole as far as I can see.
It is a false dichotomy, you are pretending that defending the injustice done to Stallman somehow takes away focus from other injustices which is not at all apparent.
The community cares so much about him because he has done significant amounts for the good of humanity. Some people blown up by a drone strike aren't known at all by the community and haven't proven themselves to be invaluable. It's the same reason that you would be sad when a person close to you dies and yet you don't feel the same way when some African kid starves.
People indeed get fired for smaller infractions but those people haven't even closely created as much value as Stallman.
You seem to be saying that it’s not really about “justice” at all, but rather that it’s purely about defending people who have done a lot of visibly valuable things. Did I get that right?
No. You didn't get that right at all. You asked why people are defending him and I gave you an explanation. The comparison I made with the african kid was specifically made to clue you in on it but it seems it went over your head.
And that explanation was that he’s done a bunch of valuable stuff. But your first answer to me was “justice.” These don’t match at all.
The comparison with the African kid went over my head because approximately none of the people pouring so much effort into being outraged that Stallman got fired have a close personal connection with him. Sure, I’m more upset when a friend suffers than when a stranger does. But you’re not friends with Stallman, are you?
Probably because satellites in LEO are too low to get such a broad view, and the camera-equipped satellites that are higher up are all over the equator.
Reminds me of a time I was searching for parking in downtown Washington, DC. Block after block was full. I eventually came to a street that had no cars parked at all. Jackpot, right? Must be some obscure rule prohibiting parking there. I kept looking. Still no luck, so I finally went back to the empty street. I carefully studied the signs and concluded that it was legal to park there. I got out of my car and paid. By the time I was done paying, the entire block was full of parked cars!
That happens in SF all the time. People will see a temporary no parking sign and drive on by. Half the time, if you read it, it’s either not in effect yet or has already expired.
If there are no cars there, people assume others confirmed you can’t park there!
This is like the old adage. "If you truly believe in market efficiency, you would never bother to bend over to pick up a $100 bill because if it were real, someone else would have picked it up already!"
There’s always an implicit (or explicit) “if conditions X, Y, and Z hold” on these statements. That prediction wasn’t wrong, conditions just changed, largely because predictions like this managed to wake people up to the dangers.
Ignoring the unstated assumptions in these statements isn’t really skepticism.
The Drake Equation is perfectly reasonable. You just have to interpret it as “these assumptions imply aliens” rather than “there are definitely aliens.”
It is not, because at least 3 factors of the equation are incredibly difficult to estimate. About as difficult as estimating the probability of an alien encounter. So the equation is basically useless.
