How the cancel culture was leveraged against RMS(blog.dachary.org)
blog.dachary.org
How the cancel culture was leveraged against RMS
https://blog.dachary.org/2020/02/10/how-the-cancel-culture-was-leveraged-against-rms/?ref=h
60 コメント
As far as I know Minsky declined to have sex with her. Yes, he was stupid to associate with a convicted rapist, but he was at least smart enough to not have sex with girls accompanying the rapist. Not a high bar, but still a bar he cleared.
At the time Epstein was not a convicted rapist. However he certainly was a shady character and it is likely Minsky had every opportunity to distance himself from him. But he did not.
Even more telling is how quickly this article was flagged and erased from the front page.
Cancel culture has existed in one form or another since the dawn of time, and it seems that nobody is above this behavior; not even the HN crowd.
Cancel culture has existed in one form or another since the dawn of time, and it seems that nobody is above this behavior; not even the HN crowd.
Have you ever had to work with RMS when young women were in the room? Have you ever been called by a woman who has locked herself in a conference room to get away from RMS? Have you ever had to deal with the legitimately batshit crazy narcissism of RMS and decided that the guy was capable of pretty much anything? Well, I have. I have dealt with him a small number of times for no more than a couple of days together and in those short times he did literally dozens of things that indicate he is either nuts, a total calculating mysoginist or worse, and that he is unable to be made aware of the fact that you don't touch women's asses without their consent, that you don't corner young women in a room, and the list goes on. He can't be told. He doesn't believe it. He's not all there. And THAT is why he took the fall. I'm absolutely sure that this was the straw that broke the camel's back for MIT and everyone else that has had to deal with his shit.
So basically, if I understand correctly, the ends justify the means.
He was an unstoppable monster who could only be brought down by lying about him, and everyone in on the conspiracy should be hailed as heroes.
He was an unstoppable monster who could only be brought down by lying about him, and everyone in on the conspiracy should be hailed as heroes.
nope. the means justify the means. what I am saying is that in this situation, in this society, in this instance, I see a lot of people saying a lot about a lot of things that he did that should have ended his role at MIT and should have resulted in a conversation about how to keep someone like him from doing these things again. And, more than that: I myself, a person, a real person, really saw him do some of those things, too -- enough of those things, in fact that just what I saw myself would justify "the ends." no one needs to lie. and many people didn't, I think. And I know that I haven't.
This is exactly it. RMS has been suspect for a long time. This was just he final, long time coming takedown.
[deleted]
> decided that the guy was capable of pretty much anything
We are all lucky that you have the power of divination. Thank you for keeping us all safe.
We are all lucky that you have the power of divination. Thank you for keeping us all safe.
just ignoring hundreds and hundreds of characters. all of which deal with behavior towards women, just to pull this one string that you could respond to. absurd and terrifying.
> terrifying
Unhinged hyperbole. Nothing about RMS is remotely terrifying.
It is the unchecked power and intolerance of your movement, that is truly terrifying.
Unhinged hyperbole. Nothing about RMS is remotely terrifying.
It is the unchecked power and intolerance of your movement, that is truly terrifying.
Interested to know what movement you think I'm in. I am a senior director of engineering at a firm that you've heard of and an MIT alum. I'm a 51 year old man. I take care of my people because that's my job. And, honestly, I didn't do it properly: I should have reported his ass to MIT the day that what I saw happen happened. But I'm talking about it now because people like you are doing what you're doing. Go back under the rock.
And, just for the record, mr unhinged hyperbole, I've been sexually assaulted myself. By a drunk, male coworker that had about 100lbs on me. I was groped, pushed down and pinned to the ground, screamed out that I knew I wanted it and that I was a ft. And I couldn't get up. Finally two people got the guy off of me. It was "terrifying." I couldn't get away and when he had me down I couldn't get up. And when I tried to get him fired for what he did (he worked for me) my HR team said that it couldn't be done since it was at a work-sponsored event and that I was actually responsible for how much he had to drink.
While I don't wish the experience on anyone, I do wonder what would be different in our world if more men had first had understanding of what it means to be vulnerable and assaulted.
Now, really do go back under the rock. You're boring and you're wrong.
And, just for the record, mr unhinged hyperbole, I've been sexually assaulted myself. By a drunk, male coworker that had about 100lbs on me. I was groped, pushed down and pinned to the ground, screamed out that I knew I wanted it and that I was a ft. And I couldn't get up. Finally two people got the guy off of me. It was "terrifying." I couldn't get away and when he had me down I couldn't get up. And when I tried to get him fired for what he did (he worked for me) my HR team said that it couldn't be done since it was at a work-sponsored event and that I was actually responsible for how much he had to drink.
While I don't wish the experience on anyone, I do wonder what would be different in our world if more men had first had understanding of what it means to be vulnerable and assaulted.
Now, really do go back under the rock. You're boring and you're wrong.
[flagged]
> In both cases there were many witness who did not intervene for fear of being the next target.
That’s the heart of the problem, and I see no solution at all. Every successful offensive operation makes them more powerful.
That’s the heart of the problem, and I see no solution at all. Every successful offensive operation makes them more powerful.
See also: Low grade "journalists" and internet mob attack RMS with lies. In-depth review.
https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
The big problem is that far too many people care about the man who lost his job and far too few people care about the underage woman who was coerced.
If this happened again, exactly the same arguments would be made as to why the woman should not have reported it and why nothing should happen to the perpetrators.
If this happened again, exactly the same arguments would be made as to why the woman should not have reported it and why nothing should happen to the perpetrators.
RMS did not coerce an underage woman, and no one is alleging this.
> The big problem is that far too many people care about the man who lost his job and far too few people care about the underage woman who was coerced.
It's actually the opposite, far too many people get easily influenced by propaganda, hence why the man lost his job.
On top of that the man lost his job is a fact, but a claim of an underage woman who was supposedly coerced is not and is not verifiable, it's just white propaganda. If people weren't so naive and accepting of propagandistic authoritative claims, this wouldn't have happened.
It's actually the opposite, far too many people get easily influenced by propaganda, hence why the man lost his job.
On top of that the man lost his job is a fact, but a claim of an underage woman who was supposedly coerced is not and is not verifiable, it's just white propaganda. If people weren't so naive and accepting of propagandistic authoritative claims, this wouldn't have happened.
There are many, many, many reports. The fact that you are focusing on one and then questioning the veracity of just that one report to make an argument like this is vile. Vile. As in if this is the way you're rolling you are vile. Literally a perpetrator of rape culture. Many reports means that if you don't have mitigating information you listen instead of speaking. Me? I witnessed, with my own eyes, RMS committing acts that merit is firing. And it would seem that I am far from alone.
Glad this post is flagged, because it's a bad, disingenuous argument that elides the central truth: RMS's dirty laundry was dragged into public view AFTER he made firing-worthy comments on a university listserv. The chain is causality is blatently misrepresented in this piece.
Here is the bulk of the email that got RMS rightfully roasted:
>The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
>“deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])”
>The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation:
>taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
>The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem.
>(See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
>The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
>Only that they had sex.
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
>I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
>Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
Here is the bulk of the email that got RMS rightfully roasted:
>The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
>“deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])”
>The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation:
>taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
>The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem.
>(See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
>The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
>Only that they had sex.
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
>I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
>Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
Thoughts by someone who -- unlike most commentators on the subject -- has actually worked with Stallman for years:
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
It should be noted that Bushnell has disliked Stallman ever since Stallman dismissed him from the Hurd project due to inactivity. It’s not clear how much of what Bushnell says is true. I haven’t stumbled on anyone willing to corroborate his claims and a couple people directly contradict him.
[deleted]
Richard Stallman has been saying hurtful, offensive things for years, and it doesn't take a cancel culture conspiracy theory for that to have real world consequences.
I saw him speak about a decade ago, and though I've never agreed with his paranoid rants, I really never cared much either way about him personally until he started airing his views on child porn. Hearing him in person really drove home how creepy his is.
This keeps coming up.
You don't know why MIT fired RMS. What is known is they didn't have to go to tabloids or blogs to find people complaining about him, people in his group, and many historical reasons.
https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...
You don't know why MIT fired RMS. What is known is they didn't have to go to tabloids or blogs to find people complaining about him, people in his group, and many historical reasons.
https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...
[deleted]
Who cares about what crazy ideas RMS has about assault? If RMS was giving money to rapists I might care. That RMS hangs out in /b isn’t on my concern radar.
I fail to see how being so easily offended is good either for an individual or society. Quick to outrage doesn’t strike me as particularly mindful or consistent with best namaste practices.
I fail to see how being so easily offended is good either for an individual or society. Quick to outrage doesn’t strike me as particularly mindful or consistent with best namaste practices.
The issue of "offense" is a common misunderstanding. Suppose some respected person at a company says something like, "all French epmloyees are morons and thieves." This actively harms French employees in the social dynamics of the company even if not a single one of them was present or heard of it. These "offenses" are not about feelings being hurt, but about the social standing of people being actually degraded when people of a certain status express biases without being confronted and without harm to their status.
I am not saying there can't be pitfalls and dangers, but if you care to know what the perspective of those of us who are in favor of repercussions for people who promote dehumanizing views, that's what we're talking about.
I am not saying there can't be pitfalls and dangers, but if you care to know what the perspective of those of us who are in favor of repercussions for people who promote dehumanizing views, that's what we're talking about.
I agree that you don’t want someone with strongly bigoted opinions leading an organization. That’s a far cry from ruining someone’s career because they hold opinions that aren’t approved by a vocal segment of the intelligentsia.
That's true, except I don't think that's the case here, or in most other notable cases that some vocal segment calls "cancel culture".
He did a LOT more than voice opinions. That's how you get fired. You do a LOT of shit and then finally you do the last thing that you end up doing before your org decides that you have to go. Don't be willfully ignorant.
I dont know how to feel about this comment. It adds nothing to the intellectual merits of discourse -- just like the OP, but echoes in part what I was thinking. Rarely do I comment but since you're being understandably downvoted I wanted to make an effort to reach out and say something akin to "mood" so you were aware your sentiment is shared, even though it is not very useful information
Have you not read the MANY first hand reports of what the guy did on a daily basis? He is not a good person and his interaction with women, particularly young women has been reported on, so, so, so many times by so many people. Look around, man. I agree, who cares about his crazy ideas. I agree, who cares about his being an insufferable human being. There are not crimes. They way the guy treated three women in my offices over the course of two days in 2013 ALONE was reason enough for him to not work for MIT.
Yet you seem offended that someone with a history of unwanted advances on women was fired from a position of public figurehead.
I care about it. I care about the opinion of people since their opinions may impact their decisions.
Caring about some persons opinion isn't the same thing as being offended.
Caring about some persons opinion isn't the same thing as being offended.
You have no idea how people's opinions about various topics will impact their decisions on other topics. This is thought policing and abject discrimination.
Are you telling me that I'm not supposed to take other peoples opinions into account when deciding who to trust and support? Because if that's the case I will decide not to put any trust in what you say.
> I fail to see how being so easily offended is good either for an individual or society.
That's my concern too. Cancel culture is children throwing tantrums (instead of having a rational discourse) and getting their way, therefore never growing up, as a result of weak parenting. That's the way society is headed unless more educated, libertarian people make an effort to stop it.
That's my concern too. Cancel culture is children throwing tantrums (instead of having a rational discourse) and getting their way, therefore never growing up, as a result of weak parenting. That's the way society is headed unless more educated, libertarian people make an effort to stop it.
Another poster used the word "dehumanizing". That seems like an apt description of the perils of cancel culture. If it's okay to destroy someone's career, their life, without considering whether the response is properly measured, why isn't it okay to (literally) burn them at the stake? And maybe their supporters, too?
We're on an evil path here.
We're on an evil path here.
Enabling the kind of behavior that RMS has been reported to have engaged in (reported by myself among others) is the evil path. Firing people for violating the standards of their org is a good idea. It should be done more often.
RMS's job was sharing his opinions, to get people to give money to the FSF.
So, yes, his opinions are pretty important.
And this says nothing about his behaviour at conferences.
Surely, the FSF can do better.
So, yes, his opinions are pretty important.
And this says nothing about his behaviour at conferences.
Surely, the FSF can do better.
One of the troubling aspects of all this was John Gruber’s decision to intentionally lie about Stallman and only write a correction after the intended effect had occurred. (Intentional because there was no effort to counteract the effect his original story had on the anti-Stallman effort.)
https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_e...
[deleted]
Isn't that how cancel culture works? You talk smack until the damage is done and put out a correction saying "whoops, I was wrong"? Politics needs to get out the business of destroying people's livelihoods.
Why have you turned "repeat someone else's misattributed anecdote" into "decision to intentionally lie"? Isn't that the kind of thing people are complaining about here?
That’s fair. dang admonished me for my wording as well.
I had written it that way because journalists can choose how carefully to fact-check what they write, and how much energy and timeliness they apply into corrections. This gives journalists an ability to “optimistically” publish errors and give misunderstandings narrative momentum. I believe Gruber wielded those tool in his Stallman piece and the correction, and I thought the proof was that he did not to try to correct the perception resulting from his original story. But, as dang said, I don’t have a mind-reader, so I had broken the site guidelines by writing as if I knew that for sure.
I had written it that way because journalists can choose how carefully to fact-check what they write, and how much energy and timeliness they apply into corrections. This gives journalists an ability to “optimistically” publish errors and give misunderstandings narrative momentum. I believe Gruber wielded those tool in his Stallman piece and the correction, and I thought the proof was that he did not to try to correct the perception resulting from his original story. But, as dang said, I don’t have a mind-reader, so I had broken the site guidelines by writing as if I knew that for sure.
I think you are underestimating a factor here. RMS spent many years of his life traveling around, sofa surfing, giving talks. There are probably tens of thousands of people that have hosted him or facilitated his being onsite with them in some way.
If even a third of those people had something resembling my two experiences with RMS than the anti-Stallman effort as you describe it is a tiny thing compared to the thousands of people in the industry that have come to know RMS personally well enough to look at the reports and find them more than plausible. Or, in my case and seemingly in many others, look at the reports and say to themselves, "I saw him do this, I know that he does this, I should have done something about it at the time."
In summary: I think that it goes a long way to explain MIT's decisions and what you may be perceiving as a general lack of support in the community to point out that thousands of people had first hand experiences with RMS that fit with the picture being painted. The reports were not isolated. They were many. The fact that they were not acted on earlier is criminal. The fact that they were finally acted upon is just.
If even a third of those people had something resembling my two experiences with RMS than the anti-Stallman effort as you describe it is a tiny thing compared to the thousands of people in the industry that have come to know RMS personally well enough to look at the reports and find them more than plausible. Or, in my case and seemingly in many others, look at the reports and say to themselves, "I saw him do this, I know that he does this, I should have done something about it at the time."
In summary: I think that it goes a long way to explain MIT's decisions and what you may be perceiving as a general lack of support in the community to point out that thousands of people had first hand experiences with RMS that fit with the picture being painted. The reports were not isolated. They were many. The fact that they were not acted on earlier is criminal. The fact that they were finally acted upon is just.
Shouldn't he pay for it in more serious way than just giving an apology which almost no one would read?
He was not shunned upon due to an unjust weaponization of cancel culture. He has a long, documented history of expressing very concerning beliefs and of extremely inappropriate behavior towards women and the latest comments were just the straw that broke the camel's back. Here's a short compilation thread of unacceptable behavior and accusations with sources
https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11739031026231...
https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11739031026231...
> I'm sure Richard Stallman still thinks sex with teenagers is acceptable.
This is my red flag for someone who's being intellectually dishonest about RMS. It's also the signature move of cancel culture -- aggressively reducing someone's opinion to one that can be easily canned as intolerable.
This is my red flag for someone who's being intellectually dishonest about RMS. It's also the signature move of cancel culture -- aggressively reducing someone's opinion to one that can be easily canned as intolerable.
Using this to erase the many, many reports of his behavior is tragic. You're pulling one thread and saying that the rest don't exist. This is the central activity of rape culture.
I've seem RMS at work first hand and my experiences fit right in with the experiences being reported. I get that people don't want him to be the person that is being described: this is a natural response. But I am using my voice to say that just the small bit of RMS that I experienced first had is enough to justify his loss of position and status. And from the look of it my story is just one of a very large number of similar and worse stories.
I've seem RMS at work first hand and my experiences fit right in with the experiences being reported. I get that people don't want him to be the person that is being described: this is a natural response. But I am using my voice to say that just the small bit of RMS that I experienced first had is enough to justify his loss of position and status. And from the look of it my story is just one of a very large number of similar and worse stories.
> You're pulling one thread and saying that the rest don't exist
That's the thing: most of the oft-repeated threads are unconvincing at best and plain dishonest at worst. If there better examples of RMS's inappropriate behavior we should be focusing on those.
That's the thing: most of the oft-repeated threads are unconvincing at best and plain dishonest at worst. If there better examples of RMS's inappropriate behavior we should be focusing on those.
There have been many examples. I myself have typed what I personally witnessed multiple times. I'll just put it this way today: I saw more than enough for him to be fired and more than enough for him to be demoted from his leadership roles. I am a real person, former Senior Director of Engineering at a fortune 50. I saw what I saw.
I don't see it as a reduction, there are over ten very serious accusations on that thread alone and most comments are sourced. Even discounting the author's biased comments, there's still a lot of proven intolerable behavior.
Then it would be in the author's best interest to avoid the examples that are easily discountable. RMS's opinions on the age of consent are well documented and within the realm of reasonable discourse (the most commonly cited example is him pointing out that the age of consent varies wildly depending on what part of the world you're in).
> RMS's opinions on the age of consent are well documented and within the realm of reasonable discourse.
Well documented, yes. Within the realm of reasonable discourse, no. Or more accurately, only reasonable among the circle of advocates who consider everything Richard Stallman says to be reasonable, by definition.
This[0] is a list of items from RMS' blog which speaks to his opinions more clearly. For further context, here[1] is the HN thread discussing it, and here[2] is my own comment therein which points out in each item, in RMS' own words, explaining why his opinion on the matter falls far outside what would be considered reasonable by most people.
It is not merely the case that RMS stated as simple mathematical fact that ages of consent differ from place to place, rather he has stated on multiple occasions his belief that children are capable of consenting to sexual relations that that sex between an adult and a child is not only normal, but healthy and should be encouraged by society.
[0]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2019-10/msg00...
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21285543
[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006
Well documented, yes. Within the realm of reasonable discourse, no. Or more accurately, only reasonable among the circle of advocates who consider everything Richard Stallman says to be reasonable, by definition.
This[0] is a list of items from RMS' blog which speaks to his opinions more clearly. For further context, here[1] is the HN thread discussing it, and here[2] is my own comment therein which points out in each item, in RMS' own words, explaining why his opinion on the matter falls far outside what would be considered reasonable by most people.
It is not merely the case that RMS stated as simple mathematical fact that ages of consent differ from place to place, rather he has stated on multiple occasions his belief that children are capable of consenting to sexual relations that that sex between an adult and a child is not only normal, but healthy and should be encouraged by society.
[0]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2019-10/msg00...
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21285543
[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006
[deleted]
It was Twitter nobodies who attacked him, no one he'd personally offended.
OK, friend. What about this "twitter nobody?" First hand, eyes-on experience. RMS grabbing asses. RMS cornering a coworker. Coworker locking herself in a room because she couldn't get away from him. RMS not even hearing what was said to him when told to stay away. RMS inappropriately touching the same woman again. And that is just one of my two tales to tell and I've only shared air with the guy for three days of my life.
If you work for MIT and you grab ONE ASS or corner one woman so that she locks herself in a room and calls for help you are likely to be fired. The reports are consistent and may vary in details by tell a remarkably similar story over and over. The real story here is the people that do not believe them.
If you work for MIT and you grab ONE ASS or corner one woman so that she locks herself in a room and calls for help you are likely to be fired. The reports are consistent and may vary in details by tell a remarkably similar story over and over. The real story here is the people that do not believe them.
In no way did he ever say that "an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”", just that she could have presented herself as being willing... The thing is there's no denying that Marvin Minsky was extraordinarily stupid to associate with someone who had a prior conviction as a sex offender and furthermore to have sex with anyone when invited by that person but that doesn't change the fact that RMS argument was mischaracterized and should not have resulted in him resigning...
This kind of mischaracterization and excessive outrage destroys rational discussion between people. It just creates a culture of fear and forces people to hide behind anonymity when engaging in any discourse over this.