Stallman Still Heading the GNU Project(lists.gnu.org)
lists.gnu.org
Stallman Still Heading the GNU Project
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008.html
606 comments
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth how quickly people will let one bad cluster of comments negate a man's entire life work. I have already outlined my opinions on this matter elsewhere but I still hope this incident doesn't ruin RMS.
It is also discomforting how suddenly people are trotting out years and years of evidence why Stallman shouldn't have held the role. A mob convened, Stallman disappears and there is a pile-on of people working quickly to expand why it was done with all sorts of rationalisations.
It is never appropriate for these sorts of controversies to play out over 1 week. If there are years of evidence of problems, there should be a few weeks of tying them all together before people resign. The knee-jerk reaction here over a mailing list comment is genuinely concerning.
And people keep quoting him while rearranging the words. We literally have a transcript here, people should be copying from it directly. No quoting of single words in a new sentence, that is just slack. :/
It is never appropriate for these sorts of controversies to play out over 1 week. If there are years of evidence of problems, there should be a few weeks of tying them all together before people resign. The knee-jerk reaction here over a mailing list comment is genuinely concerning.
And people keep quoting him while rearranging the words. We literally have a transcript here, people should be copying from it directly. No quoting of single words in a new sentence, that is just slack. :/
Do you have any reason to believe that RMS hadn’t been the subject of several co platings, over several years, including several warning/remedial/probationary periods wherein people were working with him to try and improve the behavior that caused at least some of the multiple complaints over multiple years?
In other words, what makes you think this process played out over 1 week, rather than this being the most recent of a long succession of events?
I am personally saddened by RMS’ departure, and also saddened that this “final straw” seems likely to be caused by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend. That said, I also know people who interact with him far more often than I, and they almost unanimously say it was past time. It makes me sad, but it doesn’t make me think it was hasty.
In other words, what makes you think this process played out over 1 week, rather than this being the most recent of a long succession of events?
I am personally saddened by RMS’ departure, and also saddened that this “final straw” seems likely to be caused by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend. That said, I also know people who interact with him far more often than I, and they almost unanimously say it was past time. It makes me sad, but it doesn’t make me think it was hasty.
It is kind of obvious that this isn't due to multiple anythings over multiple years. The timing is far too coincidental.
There hasn't been enough time to work out what the actual community thinks about the current drama because it takes a month or two for word to percolate around a community; stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week. Even if it is a straw that broke the camels back there needs to be a few weeks of settling to work out if there is straw and where it landed.
People like to think they can make snap decisions about what is good and what is bad. It just happens that that instinct is wrong and what fuels mob violence and other destructive actions; there are strong links between good decisions, long timeframes and moderate attitudes. This isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait a month to let everyone breath and take stock. Then Stallman can resign if enough people still think it is appropriate.
There hasn't been enough time to work out what the actual community thinks about the current drama because it takes a month or two for word to percolate around a community; stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week. Even if it is a straw that broke the camels back there needs to be a few weeks of settling to work out if there is straw and where it landed.
People like to think they can make snap decisions about what is good and what is bad. It just happens that that instinct is wrong and what fuels mob violence and other destructive actions; there are strong links between good decisions, long timeframes and moderate attitudes. This isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait a month to let everyone breath and take stock. Then Stallman can resign if enough people still think it is appropriate.
I, and many other people, have disconnected from the FSF and GNU projects for years because of Stallman. Go look at GCC, you will find a bunch of PRs from me, which stopped. The reason I stopped was Stallman. Most people who I personally know who are closely involved in this stuff knew about the complaints about Stallman.
This recent event seems to have been what finally pushed this to the mainstream, but I can assure you people have been complaining to get rid of him for over a decade.
This recent event seems to have been what finally pushed this to the mainstream, but I can assure you people have been complaining to get rid of him for over a decade.
Was it controversial statements of Stallman’s that made you stop working with him, or was it because you feel he’s difficult to work with?
Unless I’ve misinterpreted the situation, it seems like he was forced to resign due to the former rather than the latter. And if the official reason is unrelated to the actual reason, that’s a rather poor case of governance.
If someone has been disliked due to poor interpersonal skills for years, it’s very weak when a politically-sensitive pretext is required to actually get rid of them. Better to take the fight head-on, and accept the outcome.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted the situation, it seems like he was forced to resign due to the former rather than the latter. And if the official reason is unrelated to the actual reason, that’s a rather poor case of governance.
If someone has been disliked due to poor interpersonal skills for years, it’s very weak when a politically-sensitive pretext is required to actually get rid of them. Better to take the fight head-on, and accept the outcome.
He was difficult to work with (although I never "worked with" him directly, was just in a project which he ran).
I was not bothered about this controversial public statements, but several women who I trust had very bad experiences with him in person. I'm not going to name any of these people because they (very reasonably) don't want to be in the public eye.
These two issues together caused significant issues, and I felt I could no longer support a project he ran.
I'm not sure what you mean by you should "take the fight head-on". It's easy to find many people, for years and years, who have said Stallman was actively harmful to the FSF and GNU, but they were generally ignored.
I was not bothered about this controversial public statements, but several women who I trust had very bad experiences with him in person. I'm not going to name any of these people because they (very reasonably) don't want to be in the public eye.
These two issues together caused significant issues, and I felt I could no longer support a project he ran.
I'm not sure what you mean by you should "take the fight head-on". It's easy to find many people, for years and years, who have said Stallman was actively harmful to the FSF and GNU, but they were generally ignored.
I don't get why you'd stop contributing to a software project because of the spokesperson of a related org. Was stallman a jerk to you personally? How would contributing to gcc be different with a different spokesperson for the fsf?
Stallman is the head of GNU, which in in charge of GCC. Stallman is (or was) officially "in charge" of GCC, he could (and would) veto changes to GCC he didn't want.
I didn't want to support software which was headed by Stallman.
I didn't want to support software which was headed by Stallman.
[deleted]
What is your actual complaint? People have been complaining about taxes for years and years. That doesn't mean we should get rid of them.
Your analogy doesn’t work, because the general consensus is that there is no better alternative to taxation. It is a necessary evil - unlike Stallman, who, regardless of personal opinion, has others who are qualified to replace him.
How are the alternatives safer from the same complaints? I read on the internet that they beat up little old ladies.
That's not how I read your analogy. If the tax situation made him move countries, is that country better off without their contribution? Would resolving the tax situation make that country more desirable to contribute to?
I think that he does not talk about community as people who are around the world, but rather people working with him having to deal with him day to day. Those had their general opinions made long ago, whether pro-Stallman or anti-Stallman.
> stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week
We know very well how they form: years of false propaganda.
People still believes he's scared of plants.
We know very well how they form: years of false propaganda.
People still believes he's scared of plants.
This is hilarious, do you have a reference?
I do!
Thomas Lord, Arch creator and former FSF employee
> p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE and he usually had helpful criticism and advice of our efforts, from my point of view.
https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1591.1-1591.277
Thomas Lord, Arch creator and former FSF employee
> p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE and he usually had helpful criticism and advice of our efforts, from my point of view.
https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1591.1-1591.277
Ha!
I too felt uneasy about this. On one hand Stallman did something wrong on the other hand it smells like judgment by mob/hashtag/fashion, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and downright repression of free speech. I have been thinking about it quite a bit, and this is my conclusion at this point:
• What Stallman did is wrong, it was the wrong place, the wrong time and regardless of him feeling that way he speaks from a place of authority (more details at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992124)
• This one incident should not be sufficient for firing a "visiting scientist" and the head of an organization he himself founded.
• In the case of a repeat problematic behaviour it should be addressed as such. Both MIT and the FSF should have expressed their concerns years ago, followed by discussions and explanations of what constitute an acceptable behaviour and clear steps, ending in a dismissal, that would have been taken if his behaviour were not corrected.
Not addressing a problematic behaviour for years or decades is wrong. A quick firing for one incident, because of past issues that have never been addresses, is wrong. Putting pressure on someone to resign rather than dismiss them is a cop out for either lack of courage or lack of arguments, or both and is wrong. Caving under mob/fashion pressure is another cop out and is wrong.
• What Stallman did is wrong, it was the wrong place, the wrong time and regardless of him feeling that way he speaks from a place of authority (more details at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992124)
• This one incident should not be sufficient for firing a "visiting scientist" and the head of an organization he himself founded.
• In the case of a repeat problematic behaviour it should be addressed as such. Both MIT and the FSF should have expressed their concerns years ago, followed by discussions and explanations of what constitute an acceptable behaviour and clear steps, ending in a dismissal, that would have been taken if his behaviour were not corrected.
Not addressing a problematic behaviour for years or decades is wrong. A quick firing for one incident, because of past issues that have never been addresses, is wrong. Putting pressure on someone to resign rather than dismiss them is a cop out for either lack of courage or lack of arguments, or both and is wrong. Caving under mob/fashion pressure is another cop out and is wrong.
"Past time"
The only thing that's past time is that more people start to realize the real bullies and harassers are the ones who post medium posts saying "Remove $person"... in which they misrepresent or outright lie, which others in the press then launder, and then act like this is the height of speaking truth to power. The same way that Coraline Ada has hundreds of tweets of yelling, berating and denigrating people, even though "she's the woman bringing civility to open source" (wired) and wants to enforce a code of conduct.
It's all a joke, except it has actually weakened the community, and given power and influence to people who mainly seem to care about themselves, no matter which bodies they have to step over.
Diversity is a farce and geeks are useful idiots who believed it was ever about anything but narcissism. What is happening now is justification after the fact. If the accusers were expected to live up to the same standards of conduct they demand from others, these people wouldn't be taken seriously.
The only thing that's past time is that more people start to realize the real bullies and harassers are the ones who post medium posts saying "Remove $person"... in which they misrepresent or outright lie, which others in the press then launder, and then act like this is the height of speaking truth to power. The same way that Coraline Ada has hundreds of tweets of yelling, berating and denigrating people, even though "she's the woman bringing civility to open source" (wired) and wants to enforce a code of conduct.
It's all a joke, except it has actually weakened the community, and given power and influence to people who mainly seem to care about themselves, no matter which bodies they have to step over.
Diversity is a farce and geeks are useful idiots who believed it was ever about anything but narcissism. What is happening now is justification after the fact. If the accusers were expected to live up to the same standards of conduct they demand from others, these people wouldn't be taken seriously.
[deleted]
This is a very interesting read https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of...
> Do you have any reason to believe that RMS hadn’t been the subject of several co platings
Why it always resolve to a comply or die situation?
How many times people told you what to do, you didn't and in the end you were right?
> by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend
He wasn't even defending him, he was just saying "don't use a word that does not represent what really happened according to the sources".
Why it always resolve to a comply or die situation?
How many times people told you what to do, you didn't and in the end you were right?
> by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend
He wasn't even defending him, he was just saying "don't use a word that does not represent what really happened according to the sources".
That last sentence is what caused the outrage in the wider public. It was amplified by the manipulative post of Selam Jie Gano and the media that parroted it, but his original claim did hit the nerve (that it shouldn't be called sexual assault if no physical force was used in the sexual act).
Not all force is physical.
Actually, his claim was that it shouldn’t be called assault if no force or coercion was used by the older man, and the older man couldn’t be expected to know that his partner was being coerced by someone else.
> Selam Jie Gano
People should be outraged that a nobody working on automated vehicles for the US military (AKA drones) believes she on a higher moral ground than Stallman, that never hurt anybody.
People should be outraged that said nobody wrote "Remove Stallman and all the other toxic people in tech" like if "removing" people is ok, like she knows who they are, 'cause she's the ultimate judge, and as if building weapons is not toxic...
BTW
RMS has been much more brave and clear than that.
He wrote
He was doing it to protect the movement and the protest from
a - leaks to the press
b - bad PR, if they used sexual assault people could spin it as "but he didn't assault her, it was consensual sex" like they usually do: they shoot the messenger or the form of the message to not address the real issue and divert the attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)
c - he was UNDOUBTEDLY right! nobody is talking about the protest against Epstein-MIT involvement.
good job Selam, good job everybody
People should be outraged that a nobody working on automated vehicles for the US military (AKA drones) believes she on a higher moral ground than Stallman, that never hurt anybody.
People should be outraged that said nobody wrote "Remove Stallman and all the other toxic people in tech" like if "removing" people is ok, like she knows who they are, 'cause she's the ultimate judge, and as if building weapons is not toxic...
BTW
RMS has been much more brave and clear than that.
He wrote
"if someone in csail says in this discussion group that Minsky was accused of sexual assault, a very serious accusation, and someone else in csail thinks that he was not, should the latter person refrain from saying so in this same discussion group out of concern that the conversation will leak and be misconstrued by the press?"
The in stands for "science". The job of scientists is to evaluate evidence and seek truth. We have a social responsibility to do that as well. I hope that we scientists will never evade our social responsibility to seek and defend the truth out of fear that the press will misconstrue our search. That would not be a reputation I would like attached to my affiliation.
I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
He was doing it to protect the movement and the protest from
a - leaks to the press
b - bad PR, if they used sexual assault people could spin it as "but he didn't assault her, it was consensual sex" like they usually do: they shoot the messenger or the form of the message to not address the real issue and divert the attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)
c - he was UNDOUBTEDLY right! nobody is talking about the protest against Epstein-MIT involvement.
good job Selam, good job everybody
> working on automated vehicles for the US military
Somehow I missed this, so a person literally working on helping the government kill people was the one asking to remove RMS? Interestingly enough, such hypocrisy came up in all the deplatforming cases too, where they removed some relatively innocent stuff claiming it had bad impact on people, but ignored and keep ignoring all the weapons promoting content, war propaganda, etc. that literally causes death and destruction.
Somehow I missed this, so a person literally working on helping the government kill people was the one asking to remove RMS? Interestingly enough, such hypocrisy came up in all the deplatforming cases too, where they removed some relatively innocent stuff claiming it had bad impact on people, but ignored and keep ignoring all the weapons promoting content, war propaganda, etc. that literally causes death and destruction.
> Somehow I missed this, so a person literally working on helping the government kill people was the one asking to remove RMS?
Yep
https://www.linkedin.com/in/selam-gano-089895ba/
Yep
https://www.linkedin.com/in/selam-gano-089895ba/
"Passionate about using engineering for a positive impact on the world." -
well most of us think we are not the bad guy but the cognitive dissonance is strong here.
"Mission accomplished." Reminds me of the women who accused Assange. Then there is the witchhunt against Jacob Appelbaum. Sense a pattern?
Regardless of whether these allegations are true or false, there is a lesson to be learned here. The lesson here is that [some] men have a severe weakness related to their sexuality. I'd assume US HUMINT knows about this lesson, very well.
Regardless of whether these allegations are true or false, there is a lesson to be learned here. The lesson here is that [some] men have a severe weakness related to their sexuality. I'd assume US HUMINT knows about this lesson, very well.
> Then there is the witchhunt against Jacob Appelbaum. Sense a pattern?
DJB too, see https://blog.cr.yp.to/20160607-dueprocess.html and https://eindhoven.cr.yp.to/false-statements-by-henry-de-vale...
DJB too, see https://blog.cr.yp.to/20160607-dueprocess.html and https://eindhoven.cr.yp.to/false-statements-by-henry-de-vale...
> me of the women who accused Assange
There's a huge difference though.
Assange after he was accused of rape escaped from the process and started rambling about a “radical feminist conspiracy”
Stallman is not accused of anything, never escaped and if you write to him (he still answer to everybody) will ask you to support the FSF because it's important
And this is the man women and students should be afraid of...
There's a huge difference though.
Assange after he was accused of rape escaped from the process and started rambling about a “radical feminist conspiracy”
Stallman is not accused of anything, never escaped and if you write to him (he still answer to everybody) will ask you to support the FSF because it's important
And this is the man women and students should be afraid of...
> after he was accused of rape
Rape implies... rape. He is just accused of removing a condom.
> escaped from the process
Wasn't that due to the (rightful imo) fear of being sent to the US?
Rape implies... rape. He is just accused of removing a condom.
> escaped from the process
Wasn't that due to the (rightful imo) fear of being sent to the US?
> He is just accused of removing a condom
1) That's rape and 2) he's accused of more than that.
Here's the case: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
This sounds pretty rapey to me.
> As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.
1) That's rape and 2) he's accused of more than that.
Here's the case: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
This sounds pretty rapey to me.
> As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.
> Rape implies... rape. He is just accused of removing a condom
Was Stallman right (again!) when he wrote
Of course he was!
According to Swedish law, that's rape.
Welcome to the rest of the world, where the US laws do not apply.
> Wasn't that due to the (rightful imo) fear of being sent to the US?
Still escaped and blamed "feminists"
Would Epstein be right to escape because US wanted to prosecute him on the account of trafficking young girls?
Was Stallman right (again!) when he wrote
"I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17,"
Of course he was!
According to Swedish law, that's rape.
Welcome to the rest of the world, where the US laws do not apply.
> Wasn't that due to the (rightful imo) fear of being sent to the US?
Still escaped and blamed "feminists"
Would Epstein be right to escape because US wanted to prosecute him on the account of trafficking young girls?
Ok just so we're clear...
You're arguing that defending a statutory rapist isn't supporting pedophilia BUT working on the guidance systems for an autonomous ground vehicle is "help the government kill people"?
You're arguing that defending a statutory rapist isn't supporting pedophilia BUT working on the guidance systems for an autonomous ground vehicle is "help the government kill people"?
> You're arguing that defending a statutory rapist isn't supporting pedophilia
Wrong.
I'm saying that Stallman never defended a statutory rapist.
He tried to defend the protest from the backlash of using the wrong terms and a dead person from an accusation that is hard to prove anyway now that he's dead.
Statutory rape is just a safer option given the circumstances.
BTW defending a statutory rapist is not supporting pedophilia or any attorney who defended an alleged (there is no official accusation yet) statutory rapist was also supporting pedophilia?
> for an autonomous ground vehicle is "help the government kill people"?
That's what drones are for...
And I've never said that either.
I've only said that she works there.
Wrong.
I'm saying that Stallman never defended a statutory rapist.
He tried to defend the protest from the backlash of using the wrong terms and a dead person from an accusation that is hard to prove anyway now that he's dead.
Statutory rape is just a safer option given the circumstances.
BTW defending a statutory rapist is not supporting pedophilia or any attorney who defended an alleged (there is no official accusation yet) statutory rapist was also supporting pedophilia?
> for an autonomous ground vehicle is "help the government kill people"?
That's what drones are for...
And I've never said that either.
I've only said that she works there.
cptskippy(1)
That was not his claim.
> that it shouldn't be called sexual assault if no physical force was used in the sexual act
The fact Stallman doesn't understand what assault means, and then used his lack of understanding of the word assault to defend Minsky, is exactly why people are annoyed with him.
Assault does not require force or violence.
The fact Stallman doesn't understand what assault means, and then used his lack of understanding of the word assault to defend Minsky, is exactly why people are annoyed with him.
Assault does not require force or violence.
A. That was not what he argued.
B. One could quite reasonably object to the use of a term whose legal definition is very different from the everyday meaning or connotations.
B. One could quite reasonably object to the use of a term whose legal definition is very different from the everyday meaning or connotations.
Yes, it was waht he argued. Here's what he said.
> 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... records-unsealed.) 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.
Read this last paragraph.
Now read an English definition of assault. English words have several meanings. Stallman is ignoring the every day English meaning of the word assault because he doesn't understand how English works.
> Assault:
> 1) violent physical or verbal attack
> 2) any act that causes someone to feel physically threatened, which is considered reckless or intentional, and which need not necessarily involve any physical violence
> 3) rape or attempted rape
I don't understand why you'd say this...
> One could quite reasonably object to the use of a term whose legal definition is very different from the everyday meaning or connotations.
The legal definition isn't different to the everyday meaning, but even if it is Stallman needs to understand which definition is being used before he launches into his rape-apology, and he made no effort to do that, did he?
> 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... records-unsealed.) 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.
Read this last paragraph.
Now read an English definition of assault. English words have several meanings. Stallman is ignoring the every day English meaning of the word assault because he doesn't understand how English works.
> Assault:
> 1) violent physical or verbal attack
> 2) any act that causes someone to feel physically threatened, which is considered reckless or intentional, and which need not necessarily involve any physical violence
> 3) rape or attempted rape
I don't understand why you'd say this...
> One could quite reasonably object to the use of a term whose legal definition is very different from the everyday meaning or connotations.
The legal definition isn't different to the everyday meaning, but even if it is Stallman needs to understand which definition is being used before he launches into his rape-apology, and he made no effort to do that, did he?
> Assault does not require force or violence.
To the minds of the majority of people sure it does.
To the minds of the majority of people sure it does.
> The fact Stallman doesn't understand what assault means
he knows very well.
He meant, and it's obvious from the emails, that the term is slippery if used to accuse someone.
It would have been better something like "statutory rape"
because it's not disputable.
he knows very well.
He meant, and it's obvious from the emails, that the term is slippery if used to accuse someone.
It would have been better something like "statutory rape"
because it's not disputable.
But assault in law and English does not require use of force, and if Stallman meant to say "let's call Minsky a statutory rapist" he could have said that. He didn't, he went on to say that we shouldn't define rape by age -- clearly trying to prevent people calling Minsky a rapist.
> trotting out years and years of evidence
I haven’t read of any evidence, just what sounds like rumor starting and spreading
I haven’t read of any evidence, just what sounds like rumor starting and spreading
Some of his previous comments on child sex issues are republished here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...
Including gems such as
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)”
And
“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”
Plus
“There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
He has all of the sudden backtracked on his decades long-held opinion that sex between adults and children is ok less than two weeks ago:
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...
Including gems such as
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)”
And
“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”
Plus
“There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
He has all of the sudden backtracked on his decades long-held opinion that sex between adults and children is ok less than two weeks ago:
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
He changed his opinion in 2016 actually, not two weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biograp...
> “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
This is quoted out of content, here is the full quote: "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. [with a link to https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-...]
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue."
He did not take the "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children" statement out of his butt, it was the conclusion that he formed after reading this article.
But even then, I do not see how his opinions regarding paedophilia are relevant to the topic at hand.
> “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
This is quoted out of content, here is the full quote: "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. [with a link to https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-...]
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue."
He did not take the "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children" statement out of his butt, it was the conclusion that he formed after reading this article.
But even then, I do not see how his opinions regarding paedophilia are relevant to the topic at hand.
So everything these days is a spectrum, except age of consent, which starts at 18 and not at 17 and 364 days, why?
Most rape laws do recognize a spectrum: in the teens, it is generally not rape if the two people are close enough in age.
That is relevant but does nothing to explain why say Sweden put the line at 16 while the US has it at 18. It also happens to be the exact opposite for driving a car, ie the age requirement is 18 while in the US it is 16.
Personally I find the age when the brain is fully developed to carry a bit more significance, ie around age 25. Before that the brain is still being assembled and yet we expect people to make life or death decisions while driving, serving the military, have correct impulse control and follow the law just as everyone else.
Personally I find the age when the brain is fully developed to carry a bit more significance, ie around age 25. Before that the brain is still being assembled and yet we expect people to make life or death decisions while driving, serving the military, have correct impulse control and follow the law just as everyone else.
There are European countries where it's 14 too!
[deleted]
Because that's what the law says. You can't vote at 17 years and 364 days either. (Or drive at 15 years and 364 days.)
What would a "spectrum of consent" even look like? 'First base' at one age, second at another, etc.?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_metaphors_for_sex
What would a "spectrum of consent" even look like? 'First base' at one age, second at another, etc.?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_metaphors_for_sex
The law used also used to say it was illegal for gay people to marry and black people had to use separate bathrooms. That black people are worth 3/5 of a normal person. So don't even start with that "but it's the law!" drivel, we are talking about morality here.
It would look like romeo and juliet laws that allow consent between two teens close in age.
..but Romeo was over 18 and Juliet was like 13. That's statutory rape!
It's the letter of the law and that's why the above quoted position (or see below) is indefensible?
RMS: "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)”
Just because it's the letter of the law doesn't mean we are forbidden from discussing changing it.
RMS: "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)”
Just because it's the letter of the law doesn't mean we are forbidden from discussing changing it.
If people's personal stories and experiences aren't "evidence," then indeed you should just look at his written words, which include such gems as taking a charitable stance toward pedophilia (recanted very recently, after maintaining it as a public position for some decades), his repeated public "emacs virgin" bit, his stated belief that people with down syndrome should be aborted, his habit of giving out "pleasure cards" to colleagues and people he's met at conferences.
A game of telephone takes place that distorts these stories by the time they get read by us. (Not to mention the memory distortions, my memory is probably not mch worse than anyone elses but I still notice myself misremembering things in favour of some narrative a lot)
Also, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't particulalry disagree with or think any of the things you list in your comment are fireable.
Also, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't particulalry disagree with or think any of the things you list in your comment are fireable.
Not fireable, for a rank-and-file worker in an organization? Sure, I can see that.
Not fireable, for the public role of leader of an organization? They're held to higher standards of conduct, whether we like it or not;
holding forth in public on opinions that 1) run counter to mainstream society in a way that's going to piss off a lot of people and 2) have nothing to do with the organization are a distraction, and a sign that leader's losing the thread on what their organization goals are and how to accomplish that.
In short, you can lead a software advocacy organization, or you can publish your opinions on aborting fetuses with down syndrome and your skepticism about pedophilia harming children, but you can't do both for long. (Unless you're stallman, then you can do it for decades before someone says, "hey, this guy's making the free software movement look bad".)
Not fireable, for the public role of leader of an organization? They're held to higher standards of conduct, whether we like it or not;
holding forth in public on opinions that 1) run counter to mainstream society in a way that's going to piss off a lot of people and 2) have nothing to do with the organization are a distraction, and a sign that leader's losing the thread on what their organization goals are and how to accomplish that.
In short, you can lead a software advocacy organization, or you can publish your opinions on aborting fetuses with down syndrome and your skepticism about pedophilia harming children, but you can't do both for long. (Unless you're stallman, then you can do it for decades before someone says, "hey, this guy's making the free software movement look bad".)
Additionally, a lot of the "years and years of evidence" are sourceless rumours like the "suicide or date" threats.
> We literally have a transcript here, people should be copying from it directly.
Isn't that what he said in the first place?
Isn't that what he said in the first place?
People have brought up those previous comments of RMS' in the past but a lot of the community would not discuss them / reacted rather negatively to them. The news stories helped push all this out into the open.
I contend that someone who thinks that an adult should not be allowed to enter into contracts regarding software / be punished for doing so "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs." yet thinks that a 10/11 year old should be allowed to pick their sex partners is something that should be openly discussed.
I contend that someone who thinks that an adult should not be allowed to enter into contracts regarding software / be punished for doing so "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs." yet thinks that a 10/11 year old should be allowed to pick their sex partners is something that should be openly discussed.
People shouldn't bring it up?
Just because they build up doesn't mean they're not legitimate grievances, and I don't see rms changing one bit.
Responses always seem out of proportion because media coverage creates attention and makes people reconsider longstanding issues. That might seem like a manufactured mob, but it isn't, it's just focusing all of the discontent that piled up over the years.
We need better feedback loops, sure. But we also need people that listen, and RMS would fail there already.
The one incident that got attention now stems from rms having absolutely no filter and no sense of what's appropriate to say at what time and additionally seemingly prioritising his dead friends honor over believing victims even if you want to argue him being just about technically correct by using specific wording (there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none).
This is not a one off thing. When RMS does his church of emacs skit and keeps pointing at a young woman in the audience whenever he says the word virgin, when RMS asks someone their name, if they work at MIT and then if they'd like to date right away, when people literally cover their offices in plants because Stallman doesn't like them... this guy should have been told to be better or get the fuck out years ago, but instead because he's adored by nerds all over people put up with his childish insistence on doing things exactly his way, using his personal redefinition of words (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) and leaving his behavior unchallenged because you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't.
Just because they build up doesn't mean they're not legitimate grievances, and I don't see rms changing one bit.
Responses always seem out of proportion because media coverage creates attention and makes people reconsider longstanding issues. That might seem like a manufactured mob, but it isn't, it's just focusing all of the discontent that piled up over the years.
We need better feedback loops, sure. But we also need people that listen, and RMS would fail there already.
The one incident that got attention now stems from rms having absolutely no filter and no sense of what's appropriate to say at what time and additionally seemingly prioritising his dead friends honor over believing victims even if you want to argue him being just about technically correct by using specific wording (there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none).
This is not a one off thing. When RMS does his church of emacs skit and keeps pointing at a young woman in the audience whenever he says the word virgin, when RMS asks someone their name, if they work at MIT and then if they'd like to date right away, when people literally cover their offices in plants because Stallman doesn't like them... this guy should have been told to be better or get the fuck out years ago, but instead because he's adored by nerds all over people put up with his childish insistence on doing things exactly his way, using his personal redefinition of words (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) and leaving his behavior unchallenged because you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't.
> (there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none).
That seems a particular American hangup.
If people would visit the mansion of a skin-magazine tycoon on invitation, and one of the many women around there would approach them, very few would assume this was a genuine romantic interest, but there would be little reason to doubt if they were being set up for blackmail instead of straight-up prostitution.
Whether you are revolted by prostitution, or whether you would find it inappropriate for an older man to sleep with a significantly younger woman doesn't matter.
> (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) [..] you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't.
Terrible thing that, people throwing tantrums when others don't see things their way.
That seems a particular American hangup.
If people would visit the mansion of a skin-magazine tycoon on invitation, and one of the many women around there would approach them, very few would assume this was a genuine romantic interest, but there would be little reason to doubt if they were being set up for blackmail instead of straight-up prostitution.
Whether you are revolted by prostitution, or whether you would find it inappropriate for an older man to sleep with a significantly younger woman doesn't matter.
> (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) [..] you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't.
Terrible thing that, people throwing tantrums when others don't see things their way.
1. The point is that an integer person would know to deny, because you're potentially breaking the law in the one way where being oblivious doesn't matter and the "potentially" is quite likely.
2. I see no equivalence here. RMS will go out of his way to misgender people. He might not think that's a big deal, but that's no excuse. Watch any interview with the guy, even if he's talking to someone who does not subscribe to calling it "GNU/Linux" he will insist, every time, for it to be corrected. That's not just being insistent, that's actually - dare i say it - orwellian.
He also likes to draw the JBP "oh god no i have been misinterpreted" line. Like, when I say "Hacker news users are techbros." and someone asks me "why do you think all hacker news users are techbros", I can turn around and say I never said ALL I meant a very specific subset why are you misinterpreting my words you horrible horrible person aren't you supposed to be better this horrible tribalism. He does it in his per article twice (using the phrase "without inquiring if that's what I believe")
2. I see no equivalence here. RMS will go out of his way to misgender people. He might not think that's a big deal, but that's no excuse. Watch any interview with the guy, even if he's talking to someone who does not subscribe to calling it "GNU/Linux" he will insist, every time, for it to be corrected. That's not just being insistent, that's actually - dare i say it - orwellian.
He also likes to draw the JBP "oh god no i have been misinterpreted" line. Like, when I say "Hacker news users are techbros." and someone asks me "why do you think all hacker news users are techbros", I can turn around and say I never said ALL I meant a very specific subset why are you misinterpreting my words you horrible horrible person aren't you supposed to be better this horrible tribalism. He does it in his per article twice (using the phrase "without inquiring if that's what I believe")
> 1. The point is that an integer person
Most people are irrational.
> Watch any interview with the guy
Interviews he's been invited to, where calling the operating system GNU has been stipulated beforehand.
rms is involved in GNU and has no involvement in "Linux". Not in the development of the kernel, nor in the philosophy behind the various "Linux" operating systems. What would you expect him to say about "Linux"?
Most people are irrational.
> Watch any interview with the guy
Interviews he's been invited to, where calling the operating system GNU has been stipulated beforehand.
rms is involved in GNU and has no involvement in "Linux". Not in the development of the kernel, nor in the philosophy behind the various "Linux" operating systems. What would you expect him to say about "Linux"?
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: stallman isn't a pedant. he just uses the tool of pedantry to evade, play defense, or dodge critique; his goal doesn't seem to be clarity, but moving the goalposts when someone calls him out.
A pedant won't cleave to his own private definitions when they suit him ("You said drm, which I call digital restrictions management"), common language definitions when they suit him ("when someone says sexual assault, we hear assault and think violence"), and technical jargon when they suit him ("it's GNU/linux"). There's no seeking of understanding there, just someone being pushy with definitions however it suits them.
A pedant won't cleave to his own private definitions when they suit him ("You said drm, which I call digital restrictions management"), common language definitions when they suit him ("when someone says sexual assault, we hear assault and think violence"), and technical jargon when they suit him ("it's GNU/linux"). There's no seeking of understanding there, just someone being pushy with definitions however it suits them.
> Responses always seem out of proportion because media coverage creates attention and makes people reconsider longstanding issues.
Responses are out of proportion because the media hugely distorts and misleads on every single topic in service of the goal of getting more shares. They'll always try and give a view that is as interesting/outrageous/satisfying as possible, using phrasing and selective ommissions.
Then people hear those stories and relay the insinuations rather than the actual reported facts (news media is generally very good at conveying X while only literally stating Y, Vice was unusually crude and shoddy this time).
The post I am replying to is an excellent example of the end result of this game of telephone.
> believing victims
He didn't disbelieved them in the quote.
> there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none
On what basis are you saying this?
> When RMS does his church of emacs skit and keeps pointing at a young woman in the audience whenever he says the word virgin
This is the kind of thing where it's very easy for stories and memories to get distorted.
> when people literally cover their offices in plants because Stallman doesn't like them
Yet another one of the hugely exaggerated rumours...
Responses are out of proportion because the media hugely distorts and misleads on every single topic in service of the goal of getting more shares. They'll always try and give a view that is as interesting/outrageous/satisfying as possible, using phrasing and selective ommissions.
Then people hear those stories and relay the insinuations rather than the actual reported facts (news media is generally very good at conveying X while only literally stating Y, Vice was unusually crude and shoddy this time).
The post I am replying to is an excellent example of the end result of this game of telephone.
> believing victims
He didn't disbelieved them in the quote.
> there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none
On what basis are you saying this?
> When RMS does his church of emacs skit and keeps pointing at a young woman in the audience whenever he says the word virgin
This is the kind of thing where it's very easy for stories and memories to get distorted.
> when people literally cover their offices in plants because Stallman doesn't like them
Yet another one of the hugely exaggerated rumours...
Heh, I think you just uncovered a bit of hidden psychology I hadn't realized before. The part about "people put up with his childish insistence on doing things exactly his way" probably comes off as aspirational for a ton of people without realizing it. In fact, stallman hits a lot of things I'd say are probably aspirational: considered as a programming god (despite not really being involved in the technical side of the industry for at least a few decades), the ability to say whatever you want and get a pass because of who you are, getting acclaim for being an inflexible curmudgeon instead of being told to get with the times or adapt your core ideas to a changing world...who wouldn't want that kind of pass in society?
Total speculation, but it makes me wonder if stallman is the geek's version of Steinbeck's "temporarily embarrassed millionaire"; that people want to see themselves not as members of a society, but just undiscovered genius misanthropes whose greatness hasn't yet been recognized.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Total speculation, but it makes me wonder if stallman is the geek's version of Steinbeck's "temporarily embarrassed millionaire"; that people want to see themselves not as members of a society, but just undiscovered genius misanthropes whose greatness hasn't yet been recognized.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> being told to get with the times or adapt your core ideas to a changing world
Because getting with the times and adapting to a changing world require proprietary software and the dilution of privacy?
> genius misanthropes
Yes, rms the misanthrope...
Maybe stick to "kewl stealth mode startups", or at least try to make it less obvious you're just looking for excuses to dislike the man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Because getting with the times and adapting to a changing world require proprietary software and the dilution of privacy?
> genius misanthropes
Yes, rms the misanthrope...
Maybe stick to "kewl stealth mode startups", or at least try to make it less obvious you're just looking for excuses to dislike the man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No one is saying tear down everything he had ever done. All that's been said is that someone with a history of being aggressive, supporting of paedophilia, unable to determine appropriate times to debate, and lacking social graces wasn't the best person to lead an organization. RMS has had a long history of getting a pass for his actions because of his skill and passion, he was excused for behaviors that would get most people fired. Humans tend to act like this, a long buildup of frustration followed by quick action once a boiling point is reached. Look at most civil wars for instance. I think RMS made the right decision by stepping back and not letting the outrage fall onto the organizations he's part of. As is abundantly clear from the comments here, RMS will never lack for support regardless of what he does, so I don't think anyone needs to be concerned about him landing on his feet, he's going to be absolutely fine.
> All that's been said is that someone with a history of being aggressive, supporting of paedophilia, unable to determine appropriate times to debate, and lacking social graces wasn't the best person to lead an organization.
That doesn't sound like what happened at all.
More like he dared to challenge a witchhunt against someone with a tenuous connection to Epstein, and the witchhunt turned on him.
That doesn't sound like what happened at all.
More like he dared to challenge a witchhunt against someone with a tenuous connection to Epstein, and the witchhunt turned on him.
RMS has long been a controversial person, with a very abrasive personality. I think even had he been an angel he would have received the same result in today's cancel culture, but there's a lot of people who have looking to turn on him and just needed an excuse. Most people won't come to a bully's defense.
[deleted]
sodosopa(1)
Have you actually read all the statements he posted publicly on his site? Because your comment glosses over almost everything he said, and how he said it, to make it seem as though he were some completely innocent, blameless party caught up in a shitstorm because he dared to voice a countering opinion.
You can't ignore the timing.
If he wasn't fired/forced to resign because of his comments about Minsky, why did it happen just after those comments?
If he wasn't fired/forced to resign because of his comments about Minsky, why did it happen just after those comments?
Because those comments brought him to the attention of people who were not as familiar with his work. They then saw many comments about pedophilia and his behaviour towards women in the industry.
His comments about Minksy aren't enough to warrant the backlash. But his LONG history of poor behaviour absolutely is. He brought the spotlight ON HIMSELF by commenting on such a high profile case. That spotlight then listed all his flaws. Those flaws got him where he is today.
His comments about Minksy aren't enough to warrant the backlash. But his LONG history of poor behaviour absolutely is. He brought the spotlight ON HIMSELF by commenting on such a high profile case. That spotlight then listed all his flaws. Those flaws got him where he is today.
That's not what I saw. Instead I saw (and still see) people (in this very thread even) saying he "came out to defend the pedophiles". Media stories discussing his remarks about Minsky, with headlines vaguely connecting him to Epstein. The famous Selam G. hit piece mostly about (and misreading) his comments about Minksy. His past remarks and behavior are at most a footnote in these stories.
That said, I agree it's clear he made a lot of enemies with his past behavior and that certainly didn't help him at a time like this when he needs allies willing to stand against the mob and speak on his behalf.
That said, I agree it's clear he made a lot of enemies with his past behavior and that certainly didn't help him at a time like this when he needs allies willing to stand against the mob and speak on his behalf.
Supporting pedophilia? How in the ever loving Christ did you come to that conclusion?
You should really look it up. He posted multiple prior blog posts on his website about it. There's a link someone provided further down in the chain. It surprised me as well when I learned of it, but he injected himself into that debate willingly and deliberately.
> I still hope this incident doesn't ruin RMS
Notice that, fortunately, he seems to be in good spirits and has not lost his sense of humor. Look at the top line on his website (stallman.org). He says "I may not be a good leader, but at least I'm a great speaker[1]. "
With the link pointing to a video of a comically bad speech of him (which is funny, because he is almost always a very good speaker indeed).
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jskq3-lpQnE
Notice that, fortunately, he seems to be in good spirits and has not lost his sense of humor. Look at the top line on his website (stallman.org). He says "I may not be a good leader, but at least I'm a great speaker[1]. "
With the link pointing to a video of a comically bad speech of him (which is funny, because he is almost always a very good speaker indeed).
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jskq3-lpQnE
It's really odd for him to link to Youtube. I wonder if someone else added it.
That part of the HTML doesn't seem to be written with auto-fill-mode either.
That part of the HTML doesn't seem to be written with auto-fill-mode either.
He should be using peertube which is GPL 3 and based on activitypub just like mastedon.
https://joinpeertube.org/en/
Full disclosure, I'm the developer of an android player for peertube. https://github.com/sschueller/peertube-android
https://joinpeertube.org/en/
Full disclosure, I'm the developer of an android player for peertube. https://github.com/sschueller/peertube-android
He simply expects anyone who wants to keep their freedom to use youtube-dl, which is packaged in trisquel.
yes, looks suspicious, you mean he was hacked?
if that is the case, whomever managed to hack the "supreme hacker" deserves some sort of prize, doesn't it?
if that is the case, whomever managed to hack the "supreme hacker" deserves some sort of prize, doesn't it?
[deleted]
Why would you call him the "supreme hacker"? His claim to fame is his ideology, not necessarily his skill.
The man wrote the first versions of emacs, gcc, gdb, make and bison (a compiler compiler). He created the FSF and hired programmers to write other parts of GNU like glibc.
He also wrote the GPL which is a wicked legal hack.
Maybe he's no Knuth, Ritchie or Bellard, but a hacker he is. Certainly among the top 5 alive today.
He also wrote the GPL which is a wicked legal hack.
Maybe he's no Knuth, Ritchie or Bellard, but a hacker he is. Certainly among the top 5 alive today.
When was his last commit to any of those projects? He's certainly an accomplished programmer, but then again, so is Bill Gates.
Gates didn't write the first versions of Excel and Word, and probably has 0 commits on the source of these projects. Not to disparage the abilities of Gates, but there is no useful comparison here to be made.
Last talk I saw of Stallman, to a very technical audience, he was asked this same question. If I recall correctly he said that he was working to steer the programming resources towards the most important parts for user freedom (e.g., free operating system for phones), but he did not contributed code directly, leaving this task to more talented younger people. He enjoyed programming a lot, and his coding mojo was mostly spent on emacs macros to automate his daily tasks. (this is just a recollection from a talk heard a few years ago, it may not be exact, but that was the spirit).
Last talk I saw of Stallman, to a very technical audience, he was asked this same question. If I recall correctly he said that he was working to steer the programming resources towards the most important parts for user freedom (e.g., free operating system for phones), but he did not contributed code directly, leaving this task to more talented younger people. He enjoyed programming a lot, and his coding mojo was mostly spent on emacs macros to automate his daily tasks. (this is just a recollection from a talk heard a few years ago, it may not be exact, but that was the spirit).
This kind of stuff is social lynching and should be treated as such.
People are not reacting the way they are because he has the wrong skin color; or, for that matter, any trait beyond his own direct control.
He's being treated the way he is because his actions and comments are insensitive at best and downright vulgar at worst, have been so for a long time, and people have finally had enough.
If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
He's being treated the way he is because his actions and comments are insensitive at best and downright vulgar at worst, have been so for a long time, and people have finally had enough.
If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
When a mob lynches someone it's obvious they "had enough" of him. And maybe he even was guilty enough to deserve such a punishment. But we hardly ever think about this, to us a lynched person is always a victim. Why? Because nobody can be so guilty as to deny them a due process. A real justice where the person can face the accusers and defend himself, and be sure that the decision is made by a jury of impartial peers. People who "finally had enough" can only be the accusers in this scene. Where are the others?
Do you really think that insensitivity and vulgarity is worse than mob justice?
Do you really think that insensitivity and vulgarity is worse than mob justice?
A lot of lynchings took place not just because the person had the wrong skin color or other immutable trait. Often the victim was seen as uppity or acting out. I think the parallel holds.
Edit to add: Some people have said that Stallman is nuroatypical. If that is the case then it could be very well that his actions and comments are from a trait beyond his control.
Edit to add: Some people have said that Stallman is nuroatypical. If that is the case then it could be very well that his actions and comments are from a trait beyond his control.
It's even worse then if he had the wrong skin color because at least that's real. He has been lynched because of straight up lies by the media.
From what I've understood, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back with Stallman. He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT.
I keep seeing this response, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. If Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for that.
The fact is, the reporting around the event that actually did get him fired was beyond awful and disingenuous. By throwing up your hands and saying "yeah maybe those articles were a crock of lies, but that's fine because he actually did do some shitty stuff before too" you're contributing to an environment in which it's that much harder to distinguish honest reporting from fabricated character assassination.
I think this [0] comment from Reddit does a good job refuting the "straw that broke the camel's back" argument:
"""
Amazing how much damage dishonest media coverage can do, even though it's both trivial to prove their misquotes false and we now have an witness further supporting Stallman's original argument. Summary of events:
In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a co-founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
> 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.
Someone wrote a Medium blogpost called "Remove Richard Stallman" quoting the argument. Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was "entirely willing" (rather than pretending to be) and as "defending Epstein". Note the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so. Since then physicist Greg Benford, who was present at the time, has stated that she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:
> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me.
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down? We're supposed to consider a dead man a rapist for sex he didn't have because of something Epstein did without his knowledge, possibly even in a failed attempt to create blackmail material against him?
Despite this, Stallman has now been pressured to resign not just from MIT but from the Free Software Foundation that he founded. Despite (and sometimes because of) his eccentricities, I think Stallman was a very valuable voice in free-software, particularly as someone whose dedication to it as an ideal helped counterbalance corporate influence and the like. But if some journalists decide he should be out and are willing to tell lies about it, then apparently that's enough for him to be pushed out.
"""
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/d59efr/computer...
The fact is, the reporting around the event that actually did get him fired was beyond awful and disingenuous. By throwing up your hands and saying "yeah maybe those articles were a crock of lies, but that's fine because he actually did do some shitty stuff before too" you're contributing to an environment in which it's that much harder to distinguish honest reporting from fabricated character assassination.
I think this [0] comment from Reddit does a good job refuting the "straw that broke the camel's back" argument:
"""
Amazing how much damage dishonest media coverage can do, even though it's both trivial to prove their misquotes false and we now have an witness further supporting Stallman's original argument. Summary of events:
In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a co-founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
> 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.
Someone wrote a Medium blogpost called "Remove Richard Stallman" quoting the argument. Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was "entirely willing" (rather than pretending to be) and as "defending Epstein". Note the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so. Since then physicist Greg Benford, who was present at the time, has stated that she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:
> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me.
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down? We're supposed to consider a dead man a rapist for sex he didn't have because of something Epstein did without his knowledge, possibly even in a failed attempt to create blackmail material against him?
Despite this, Stallman has now been pressured to resign not just from MIT but from the Free Software Foundation that he founded. Despite (and sometimes because of) his eccentricities, I think Stallman was a very valuable voice in free-software, particularly as someone whose dedication to it as an ideal helped counterbalance corporate influence and the like. But if some journalists decide he should be out and are willing to tell lies about it, then apparently that's enough for him to be pushed out.
"""
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/d59efr/computer...
> a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky.
For fucks sake, this is not even an accusation to Minsky.
Take a minute to appreciate the fact that Minsky is being called a Rapist because somebody said that some person told another person to have sex with him. And he turned her down.
For fucks sake, this is not even an accusation to Minsky.
Take a minute to appreciate the fact that Minsky is being called a Rapist because somebody said that some person told another person to have sex with him. And he turned her down.
Stallman assumed that Minsky had sex with Giuffre.
So basically Stallman was found "guilty" on a semantic argument regarding a hypothetical situation based on an assumption? That's crazy.
Part of the problem is that Stallman didn't try to defend Minsky by pointing out that the allegation was unconfirmed and that we shouldn't assume guilt.
Instead, he said Minsky "probably" slept with the woman and then argued that this should not be considered sexual assault, even though at the very least it would have been statutory rape.
It's a bad look no matter how you spin it, and seems to indicate a kind of misogyny and treatment of women as sex objects. It seems to place him firmly in the toxic patriarchy which is no longer considered acceptable.
I saw a comment along the lines that Stallman is still living in the 1970s in that respect. That's a problem for a public figurehead today, unless of course they're a right-wing conservative.
Instead, he said Minsky "probably" slept with the woman and then argued that this should not be considered sexual assault, even though at the very least it would have been statutory rape.
It's a bad look no matter how you spin it, and seems to indicate a kind of misogyny and treatment of women as sex objects. It seems to place him firmly in the toxic patriarchy which is no longer considered acceptable.
I saw a comment along the lines that Stallman is still living in the 1970s in that respect. That's a problem for a public figurehead today, unless of course they're a right-wing conservative.
[deleted]
Stallman wrote that statutory rape laws are morally absurd. You cannot possibly defend that. Age is an element in consent.
If I remember correctly he had two points against statutory rape. His first was that it's absurd that it is illegal for, say, a 20 year old to have sex with a 17 year old (in certain states). I would agree with this in that that situation isn't immoral, as the actual immorality should come from differences in the mental development of the two people. Of course this varies from person to person and is basically impossible to determine in actuality, so we set a certain cut off because its what we CAN do. The second point, which I also would agree with, is that it's ridiculous for it to be called rape when statutory rape and actual rape are very different things. I believe his grievance is with the name of statutory rape, specifically in cases where two individuals are quite close in age anyways. As is the case with a 17 and 20 year old. On the other hand I would say that a 20 year old and a 13 year old would be closer to rape because even if both parties say it is consensual, it actually can't be fully consensual due to the differences in mental development.
So I believe the problem comes down to these two very different situations sharing the same name. Maybe they don't carry the same punishment, I'm not sure, but I definitely don't agree with calling both of these situations the same name, especially when that name includes the word rape. There's a gravity there that I believe the situation with the 20 and 17 year old doesn't carry, but the situation with the 20 and 13 year old does.
So I believe the problem comes down to these two very different situations sharing the same name. Maybe they don't carry the same punishment, I'm not sure, but I definitely don't agree with calling both of these situations the same name, especially when that name includes the word rape. There's a gravity there that I believe the situation with the 20 and 17 year old doesn't carry, but the situation with the 20 and 13 year old does.
Let’s look at Stallman’s actual words. Stallman said the most plausible explanation is that the child who Minsky abused was ‘entirely willing’.
Or, there is this quote:
“All I know she said about Minsky is that Epstein directed her to have sex with Minsky. That does not say whether Minsky knew that she was being coerced. it does not report what each said and did during their sexual encounter. We can imagine various scenarios.”
Or this one:
“it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17”
With all due respect to your argument, this is not a case of a 20 year old and a 17 year old. This is a case of a 73 year old esteemed researcher at an institution with undergraduate students having sex with a 17 year old in a country that defines such an age difference as statutory rape.
Stallman’s idea about how it’s absurd to define rape according to age or country is offensive in every way imaginable. Sovereign nations are allowed to set and enforce their own laws. Other sovereign nations are allowed to choose whether to extradite their citizens back to those nations to face their justice system. But the act of entering a country is an agreement that you will respect its sovereignty and its laws. If you argue against that, you’re effectively arguing against the entire basis of international law and international relations. That would be an interesting argument, but let’s talk about mineral rights instead of child sexual abuse.
As for age, countries around the world recognize that children cannot be expected to provide informed consent to engage in sexual activity. They argue that by statute, some children are not capable of consenting to sexual activity. These countries have tried to come up with policy to deal with how absolute differences in age don’t necessarily account for differences in maturity. Some countries will not enforce statutory rape laws if the age difference is slight. Other countries enforce their own laws differently to account for different situations. This is a case of a 56 year age difference involving a pedophile, an eminent researcher and a victim of child trafficking.
All of that aside, the fact is that a victim chose to come forward and make herself available to be deposed. During this deposition, the victim said that she was coerced into having sex with Minsky.
Minsky is dead. Why not believe the victim? What do we gain from pedantic arguments about the nature of international law and sexual abuse?
* Edited because my first version was poorly written and almost incomprehensible.
Or, there is this quote:
“All I know she said about Minsky is that Epstein directed her to have sex with Minsky. That does not say whether Minsky knew that she was being coerced. it does not report what each said and did during their sexual encounter. We can imagine various scenarios.”
Or this one:
“it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17”
With all due respect to your argument, this is not a case of a 20 year old and a 17 year old. This is a case of a 73 year old esteemed researcher at an institution with undergraduate students having sex with a 17 year old in a country that defines such an age difference as statutory rape.
Stallman’s idea about how it’s absurd to define rape according to age or country is offensive in every way imaginable. Sovereign nations are allowed to set and enforce their own laws. Other sovereign nations are allowed to choose whether to extradite their citizens back to those nations to face their justice system. But the act of entering a country is an agreement that you will respect its sovereignty and its laws. If you argue against that, you’re effectively arguing against the entire basis of international law and international relations. That would be an interesting argument, but let’s talk about mineral rights instead of child sexual abuse.
As for age, countries around the world recognize that children cannot be expected to provide informed consent to engage in sexual activity. They argue that by statute, some children are not capable of consenting to sexual activity. These countries have tried to come up with policy to deal with how absolute differences in age don’t necessarily account for differences in maturity. Some countries will not enforce statutory rape laws if the age difference is slight. Other countries enforce their own laws differently to account for different situations. This is a case of a 56 year age difference involving a pedophile, an eminent researcher and a victim of child trafficking.
All of that aside, the fact is that a victim chose to come forward and make herself available to be deposed. During this deposition, the victim said that she was coerced into having sex with Minsky.
Minsky is dead. Why not believe the victim? What do we gain from pedantic arguments about the nature of international law and sexual abuse?
* Edited because my first version was poorly written and almost incomprehensible.
> Age is an element in consent.
Here's a list of the age of consent by nation worldwide: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/age-of-consent-by...
So tell us, which value is the "real" age of consent and what the moral reasoning is that makes it and no other value the correct one?
Here's a list of the age of consent by nation worldwide: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/age-of-consent-by...
So tell us, which value is the "real" age of consent and what the moral reasoning is that makes it and no other value the correct one?
It is defined by whatever country you are in. Richard Stallman does not get to rewrite sovereignty because his buddy did something fucking stupid. The moral reason is that sovereign nations get to set their own rules around the welfare of children. When you freely choose to enter a country, you agree to abide by their laws and not sexually abuse their definition of a child. If you have difficulty with that, please reflect upon your own moral compass, specifically in regards to child welfare.
Or here is another one. A 73 year old had sex with someone 56 years younger than him. This 73 year old is an educator at one of the top Universities in the world yet he still chose to engage without absolutely ensuring that she consented. The moral path is to look around, realize there is something seriously wrong with Epstein and his harem (Stallman’s word) and stay the hell away.
Or here is another one. A 73 year old had sex with someone 56 years younger than him. This 73 year old is an educator at one of the top Universities in the world yet he still chose to engage without absolutely ensuring that she consented. The moral path is to look around, realize there is something seriously wrong with Epstein and his harem (Stallman’s word) and stay the hell away.
Not entirely:
> The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. ... Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
> The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. ... Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
The real reference, which is available and downloadable from the internet to anybody who wants to read it don;t say the sex happened.
never, in the hundreds of pages of depositions.
Instead of talking about MIT that took money from Epstein, we're talking about Stallman that never did.
never, in the hundreds of pages of depositions.
Instead of talking about MIT that took money from Epstein, we're talking about Stallman that never did.
It seems a bit like Motte and Bailey Doctrine[1].
The motte is relatively easy to defend... Richard isn't the most charming guy and comes off as a creep, so he shouldn't be a leader. But it's not the most persuasive argument.
The bailey is hard to defend... the various misinterpretations of Richard's email. Despite these interpretations being wrong, they're emotionally persuasive. If someone uses logic against them, the antagonist can always retreat to the motte.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
The motte is relatively easy to defend... Richard isn't the most charming guy and comes off as a creep, so he shouldn't be a leader. But it's not the most persuasive argument.
The bailey is hard to defend... the various misinterpretations of Richard's email. Despite these interpretations being wrong, they're emotionally persuasive. If someone uses logic against them, the antagonist can always retreat to the motte.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
I think in this case the Motte it self is indefensible in the end: RMS isn't the most charming guy and comes off as a creep: That's indeed not a persuasive argument, except, take into account that rather a large part of his job involves being a public advocate, and, well, either you teach the public not to get excited about someone who (literally, sometimes) puts his foot in his mouth, in which case, good luck to you, or, you sigh, complain about the tyranny of the masses... and fire him.
Is it fair? (And consider that I'm looking solely at the motte part; disregarding entirely this most recent event): Well, for most definitions of fair, it is not. Nevertheless, I don't think MIT, GNU, FSF, or any other entity should suffer significant damage just to chase the ideal of someone with RMS's peculiar ways gets to do the job of being an advocate of their organization.
It boils down to this: Is it acceptable to fire someone from a job based on something they are not really responsible for?
I think if the job description itself, prior to you taking it, makes clear that: Yes, you will be fired then – that it is fine.
The vast majority of clearly public facing jobs work like this. If you're the CEO and you do something rather upsetting, but not illegal, in a private setting that leaks out and which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the company or on your ability to perform your job there... you still get fired: The board weighs the value of your presence in your C-level role vs. the next best candidate vs. the damage done to 'the brand' by leaving you there, and a swift decision is made.
It's hard to draw lines in the sand on this. Both the public-ness of your role as well as the severity of how upset the public is about the unrelated thing need to be taken into account.
Imagine some sales rep at a company has a sextape leaked from years ago. Is it fair to fire them? Probably not.
Imagine that same sales rep has a penis tattoo'd on their forehead. Is it fair to fire them? Probably yeah, and the reason is not really: "They will do a bad job at sales itself". The reason is: "Most of your job is selling the product, put a small part of it is simply reflecting on the company. And with that tattoo you're doing such an incredibly bad job at that last part, we dont even want to know how well you will be doing at the first: You're out".
My point is, for RMS? I estimate that he is on the 'his firing his justified' side of the line for virtually anybody's sense of fairness.
Is it fair? (And consider that I'm looking solely at the motte part; disregarding entirely this most recent event): Well, for most definitions of fair, it is not. Nevertheless, I don't think MIT, GNU, FSF, or any other entity should suffer significant damage just to chase the ideal of someone with RMS's peculiar ways gets to do the job of being an advocate of their organization.
It boils down to this: Is it acceptable to fire someone from a job based on something they are not really responsible for?
I think if the job description itself, prior to you taking it, makes clear that: Yes, you will be fired then – that it is fine.
The vast majority of clearly public facing jobs work like this. If you're the CEO and you do something rather upsetting, but not illegal, in a private setting that leaks out and which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the company or on your ability to perform your job there... you still get fired: The board weighs the value of your presence in your C-level role vs. the next best candidate vs. the damage done to 'the brand' by leaving you there, and a swift decision is made.
It's hard to draw lines in the sand on this. Both the public-ness of your role as well as the severity of how upset the public is about the unrelated thing need to be taken into account.
Imagine some sales rep at a company has a sextape leaked from years ago. Is it fair to fire them? Probably not.
Imagine that same sales rep has a penis tattoo'd on their forehead. Is it fair to fire them? Probably yeah, and the reason is not really: "They will do a bad job at sales itself". The reason is: "Most of your job is selling the product, put a small part of it is simply reflecting on the company. And with that tattoo you're doing such an incredibly bad job at that last part, we dont even want to know how well you will be doing at the first: You're out".
My point is, for RMS? I estimate that he is on the 'his firing his justified' side of the line for virtually anybody's sense of fairness.
> I think if the job description itself, prior to you taking it
The job the description would pertain to didn't exist before he created it by filling it.
I don't think any of the more palatable audience-friendly "FOSS" luminaries are going to decline being flown business-class, and then ask for the price difference to be donated.
Open source opinion maker is a solid career path now, and will attract the sort of people interested in making careers.
rms has shown through example to be incorruptable. That's the only requirement, but it's hard to find. All the rest is nice-to-have.
The job the description would pertain to didn't exist before he created it by filling it.
I don't think any of the more palatable audience-friendly "FOSS" luminaries are going to decline being flown business-class, and then ask for the price difference to be donated.
Open source opinion maker is a solid career path now, and will attract the sort of people interested in making careers.
rms has shown through example to be incorruptable. That's the only requirement, but it's hard to find. All the rest is nice-to-have.
That's a quite interesting method from a rhetorical point of view. Thanks for the link.
The other thing is that it's extremely obvious that the tech press doesn't hold their own to the same standards. For instance, there's this one Ars Technica journalist who'd been posting pro-pedophilia comments on their own forums and creeping their regulars out for years. They were quite happy to keep him on until he was arrested in an FBI sting for allegedly attempting to meet up to molest a 7 year old: https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/peter-bright-charged-solicit... Even after his arrest, this didn't get a huge amount of press coverage.
Holy shit.
It’s not crazy or undesirable for one particular event to prompt an overdue re-evaluation of a long pattern of historical events and an appropriate response.
An event that happened and was publicly known over a decade ago, I don't see how it could have broken the camels back right now.
> An event that happened and was publicly known over a decade ago, I don't see how it could have broken the camels back right now.
You can see it if you assume that some (even most) of the people judging weren't part of the community at the time and might just have learned of it.
You can see it if you assume that some (even most) of the people judging weren't part of the community at the time and might just have learned of it.
Uh, the world was different a decade ago?
What event are you referring to?
As an outsider, you could be right, you could be propagating a rumor or it’s made up. How do I make up my mind ?
> I keep seeing this response, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. If Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for that.
Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense that his previous unacceptable behavior has been tolerated. Pressure on him, should have been so much earlier.
Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense that his previous unacceptable behavior has been tolerated. Pressure on him, should have been so much earlier.
How come none of that came into light before the leak of his emails? This is quite curious, don't you think? I've read the emails and from the looks of it he just says that there's not enough evidence to condemn someone for their alleged misconduct. I'm very skeptical about all these "revelations", this entire thing appears to be media manipulation. I recommend the book "Trust me, I'm lying", it's eye-opening.
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. - RMS Quote https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
You don't have to trust the media. RMS himself confirms that he was wrong in the past, at least regarding child abuse.
You don't have to trust the media. RMS himself confirms that he was wrong in the past, at least regarding child abuse.
You are assuming that Aqua implies that Stallman publishing his personal opinions in his blog was the issue. While this might be true, for me at least the real revelations were posts like https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1173981287037751297 and https://twitter.com/jilliancyork/status/1173898047878598656 - which constitute actual unacceptable behaviour but can't easily be verified.
I'm sorry, but:
"I hosted rms many years ago in the 90’s, what was supposed to be hosting your hero for a ~3 day thing became a ~2 month nightmare."
Did Miguel ask him to leave? Or did he just sit around passive-aggressively for 3 whole months? Also, rms called Miguel "a traitor to the Free Software community" at some point, and now with the whole MIT business, he gets in with the twitter defamation league spouting off his grievances. That's pretty much beyond cowardly and into despicable territory.
Jillian's story is pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell:
"an older female colleague recommended at a whisper that I lock myself in my office."
"She later told me it was because he gets touchy"
"Over the years, I heard all sorts of things of this nature, and warned women who might not be in the know"
Maybe this older female colleague was told the same things at some point? Why is every single allegation hearsay from twitter?
"instructing them on how to properly make tea"
Yes, rms can be very particular about minor things. If you did not know even this, why are you writing about "things about rms others should know"?
Also, again EFF connections. Do they even want to pretend to be useful anymore, outside of cluelessly abusing people on twitter for kicks?
"I hosted rms many years ago in the 90’s, what was supposed to be hosting your hero for a ~3 day thing became a ~2 month nightmare."
Did Miguel ask him to leave? Or did he just sit around passive-aggressively for 3 whole months? Also, rms called Miguel "a traitor to the Free Software community" at some point, and now with the whole MIT business, he gets in with the twitter defamation league spouting off his grievances. That's pretty much beyond cowardly and into despicable territory.
Jillian's story is pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell:
"an older female colleague recommended at a whisper that I lock myself in my office."
"She later told me it was because he gets touchy"
"Over the years, I heard all sorts of things of this nature, and warned women who might not be in the know"
Maybe this older female colleague was told the same things at some point? Why is every single allegation hearsay from twitter?
"instructing them on how to properly make tea"
Yes, rms can be very particular about minor things. If you did not know even this, why are you writing about "things about rms others should know"?
Also, again EFF connections. Do they even want to pretend to be useful anymore, outside of cluelessly abusing people on twitter for kicks?
You are sorry about what? I myself said that these stories can't easily be verified. I only suggested an alternative understanding of Aqua's post to tutfbhuf
Sorry about not finding myself in agreement over what would be a "real revelation", but I might have misunderstood. My apologies.
What is the exact unacceptable behaviour that you linked to? (Sorry, navigating twitter sucks, I honestly am unsure what you're talking about). From the second link I get two things - second-hand tale that "he gets touchy" (hasn't ever happened to her directly I guess? Or we would've known). And first-hand tale that he abused organizers by instructing them how to make tea; she assumes it's because organizers are women, but from what I know RMS would abuse organizers regardless of gender. He was weird and hard to live with, much less please. Yes I can believe that (it's something that Miguel de Icaza apparently complains about). But this is not a crime!
The tea case and the de Icaza case might not be crimes but they are still unacceptable behaviour imo.
You don't have to like him to recognise injustice.
People are literally celebrating a "long overdue" injustice because they don't like the man, so "he had it coming". I don't know how can anyone not find this unsetting.
People are literally celebrating a "long overdue" injustice because they don't like the man, so "he had it coming". I don't know how can anyone not find this unsetting.
> You don't have to like him to recognise injustice.
I never said otherwise. If you look at my comment history you will see that I am against the injustice against RMS.
I never said otherwise. If you look at my comment history you will see that I am against the injustice against RMS.
I'm sorry, but like I already stated, both tweets you linked were published after the initial story went viral. I'm not saying these people are lying, I'm saying I tend to take such revelations with a grain of salt after reading "trust me, I'm lying", I highly recommend it if you've got a few spare hours. In short, blogs, popular twitter accounts and so on tend to lie and spread misinformation in order to gain more followers. I don't know these people, I don't know if whatever they claim is credible, thus I don't automatically assume they speak the truth.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21099513
I certainly agree with you.
I certainly agree with you.
It seems to have been pretty much public knowledge in the circles that interacted with RMS. It's just that nobody cared enough to act.
I have interacted with RMS. He stayed at a friend's house, and I went to one of his lectures. Though I'm not a friend of the man, I know that what you're saying was not true, at least during the time that me and my friends met with him.
This type of rumor mongering is hurtful and should be opposed.
This type of rumor mongering is hurtful and should be opposed.
"He didn't harass women during the two days I interacted with him, therefore he has never done so" is not as strong a defense as you seem to think.
"I heard somebody say he harassed women, so he must have done so" is also not as strong an attack as you seem to think.
When did you stop beating your wife ?
> He didn't harass women during the two days I interacted with him, therefore he has never done so
Exactly, he's innocent until proven guilty, like everybody else.
You're implying that "I heard from someone that heard it from someone else, that heard it from their dad, that read it on a mailing list, 20 years ago, that he did, therefore ho did"
Exactly, he's innocent until proven guilty, like everybody else.
You're implying that "I heard from someone that heard it from someone else, that heard it from their dad, that read it on a mailing list, 20 years ago, that he did, therefore ho did"
> It seems
seems does not qualify as evidence
> circles that interacted with RMS
Like Thomas Lord?
https://archive.is/7qepC
seems does not qualify as evidence
> circles that interacted with RMS
Like Thomas Lord?
https://archive.is/7qepC
You don't there is enough mud to go around? MIT can do the Yogi Berra schtick by throwing Stallman out. But if so, it still does not automatically follow that it was the wrong thing to do.
> You don't there is enough mud to go around?
I think there is only mud, not based on any real issue with what Stallman said or did.
> does not automatically follow that it was the wrong thing to do.
It does.
FSF main goal was freedom and protecting fundamental liberties of each individual
Stallman main contribution to FSF was the GPL, a legal framework, FSF main contribution was pro bono legal support defending free software in court.
So, yeah, if FSF cannot defend its founder, most popular and most honorable member, it becomes basically useless, it follows it was the wrong thing to do.
Their reputation was based on trust, trust has been broken.
I think there is only mud, not based on any real issue with what Stallman said or did.
> does not automatically follow that it was the wrong thing to do.
It does.
FSF main goal was freedom and protecting fundamental liberties of each individual
Stallman main contribution to FSF was the GPL, a legal framework, FSF main contribution was pro bono legal support defending free software in court.
So, yeah, if FSF cannot defend its founder, most popular and most honorable member, it becomes basically useless, it follows it was the wrong thing to do.
Their reputation was based on trust, trust has been broken.
Did you read the entire comment? If so, can you address the core argument instead of quoting a single line out of context?
since The majority of people haven’t witnessed the unacceptable behavior, please provide some evidence otherwise it seems like mud slinging. This is the citation required meme equivalent
One, I am seriously disheartened even now people do the he said, she said routine.
Two, https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
Two, https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
What a disgusting, morally reprehensible take by Mr. Bushnell. He's arguing that Stallman should have known to shut up an just thrown Minsky under the bus, sort of like Bushnell does with Stallman in that article.
> RMS treated the problem as being “let’s make sure we don’t criticize Minsky unfairly”, when the problem was actually, “how can we come to terms with a history of MIT’s institutional neglect of its responsibilities toward women and its apparent complicity with Epstein’s crimes”.
> Minsky is also dead, and there’s plenty of time to discuss at leisure whatever questions there may be about his culpability.
> Minsky is also dead, and there’s plenty of time to discuss at leisure whatever questions there may be about his culpability.
Wikipedia states:
"Bushnell [..] is employed by Google LLC. He is a member of Saint Mark's Episcopal Church."
With all due respect to his employment and religious beliefs, that is not the sort of person to provide a better understanding of Stallman, in general or psychologically.
"Bushnell [..] is employed by Google LLC. He is a member of Saint Mark's Episcopal Church."
With all due respect to his employment and religious beliefs, that is not the sort of person to provide a better understanding of Stallman, in general or psychologically.
> With all due respect to his employment and religious beliefs, that is not the sort of person to provide a better understanding of Stallman, in general or psychologically.
No? FTA:
> But I’ll give you a personal take. By my reckoning, I worked for RMS longer than any other programmer.
No? FTA:
> But I’ll give you a personal take. By my reckoning, I worked for RMS longer than any other programmer.
The reports that he defended Epstein were false. The reports that he defended adults having sex with children were true. Stories that people used to whisper about started to show up in news articles.
The straw that broke the camel's back could be the wrong metaphor. Maybe it's more like the dam burst.
The straw that broke the camel's back could be the wrong metaphor. Maybe it's more like the dam burst.
As far as I know, he publicly renounced his decades old opinion even before the last witch hunt began. The witch hunt was based on false claim. He never supported Epstein.
Stallman defended adults having sex with children in 2013.[1] He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know.
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
In this post he just linked The Guardian article that described lack of solid empirical evidence.
Also note that it is a difference between an empirical claim and a moral claim. While empirical claim that some action almost always leads to negative outcome to others could be used as an argument for that action being immoral, it is still perfectly valid to attack the supporting empirical claim, while not attacking the moral claim.
Also note that it is a difference between an empirical claim and a moral claim. While empirical claim that some action almost always leads to negative outcome to others could be used as an argument for that action being immoral, it is still perfectly valid to attack the supporting empirical claim, while not attacking the moral claim.
The point is that his opinion wasn't decades old.
My point is that this Stallman's comment is not 'defending aduls havings sex with children', but statement about empirical facts.
There are Stallman's statements defending non-coercive sex with children, but they are older:
https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
There are Stallman's statements defending non-coercive sex with children, but they are older:
https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
> He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know.
At least there is this one from 14th September, also on his site:
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
" Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."
At least there is this one from 14th September, also on his site:
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
" Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."
As far as I know, he publicly renounced his decades old opinion even before the last witch hunt began.
Citation needed. He expressed the same opinion in 2013 that he did in 2006 and 2003:
https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...
https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
Citation needed. He expressed the same opinion in 2013 that he did in 2006 and 2003:
https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...
https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
And withdrew it in 2016...
Good for him - where can I read up on that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biograp...
But even if he hadn't changed his opinion there would be nothing wrong with that imo.
But even if he hadn't changed his opinion there would be nothing wrong with that imo.
The same place you linked to.
Could you narrow that down? I tried, but there's a lot of material to go through.
The stuff I did find was only tangentially related and not indicative of any changes in position, eg
https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#16_September...
https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#12_September...
https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#15_July_2016...
The stuff I did find was only tangentially related and not indicative of any changes in position, eg
https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#16_September...
https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#12_September...
https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#15_July_2016...
Doesn't matter what metaphor you chose - he was fired for the wrong reasons. To exaggerate: if Trump were found to be helping out a Mexican immigrant, and after the huge scandal with his voter base he'd get impeached - I wouldn't celebrate, at all. Regardless what you think of him, a man needs to pay for his bad deeds, not for the good or neutral ones that just happened in the wrong political climate.
He wasn't fired. He resigned under pressure. He cited "a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations", not a single incident.
C'mon. Don't bend to falsehoods when it suits your argument. Very few people in such PR nightmares actually "resign", they're just allowed to save face by the company.
I said he resigned under pressure. I think MIT would have fired him but not the FSF. My argument is that he was pressured because of more than just one incident.
People are never fired from such positions they are asked to resign. Trying to repaint this as him willingly stepping down is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
That's just semantics, you know that, right?
He resigned from two independent organizations at the same time. Imagine if your previous boss told you to quit your job.
Parent poster explicitly said "under pressure". What more do you want?
Really? What's the difference between "fired" and "resigned under pressure"? How does it change one bit my original argument? In this instance, RMS was innocent. Doesn't matter if he was guilty in 999999 other instances(1), he was under immense pressure to resign _for this incident_. What happened to the US philosophy of freedom and liberty that inspired an entire world? I feel like it's completely gone now, they easily sacrifice what were formerly sacred principles, for well-intended but completely misguided reasons.
> It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.
(1) Which is yet to be proven, btw. We shouldn't take destroying a man's reputation so lightly. But well, what do I know. The mob must enjoy its victories, even when they're really defeats.
> It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.
(1) Which is yet to be proven, btw. We shouldn't take destroying a man's reputation so lightly. But well, what do I know. The mob must enjoy its victories, even when they're really defeats.
[deleted]
> I keep seeing this response, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. If Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for that.
In human nature it's extremely common to tolerate things too long and then bail out when something minuscule happens later.
Not ideal but easy to understand.
In human nature it's extremely common to tolerate things too long and then bail out when something minuscule happens later.
Not ideal but easy to understand.
It's also human nature to become murderously violent about various things, and to grab a club or bone and use it as a weapon to kill someone you don't like or because they have something you want. Humans managed to create "civlization" and "laws" and "police" to curb this negative part of human nature.
I don't see "human nature" as an acceptable excuse for anything at all.
I don't see "human nature" as an acceptable excuse for anything at all.
The problem is that the evidence of individual women is fallible, and can be brushed off. The comments he made in the mailing list are in the public record and are therefore undeniable evidence, which serves to reinforce previous claims of abuse.
It may be a straw, but it's a very heavy straw, placed at just the right location
It may be a straw, but it's a very heavy straw, placed at just the right location
(I only want to wade in here on one narrow logical point, and avoid discussing the specifics of this case.)
> If Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for that.
Indeed!
The fact that he wasn't fired for his past behaviour doesn't necessarily mean that his past behaviour was acceptable.
Not firing him for his past behaviour may just have been an error of judgement.
If I get away with (say) stealing once, that shouldn't mean I now have carte blanche to steal anything without consequence.
> If Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for that.
Indeed!
The fact that he wasn't fired for his past behaviour doesn't necessarily mean that his past behaviour was acceptable.
Not firing him for his past behaviour may just have been an error of judgement.
If I get away with (say) stealing once, that shouldn't mean I now have carte blanche to steal anything without consequence.
> If Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for that.
He was! He was fired for all that, and for this most recent incident as well. He wasn't fired for a single incident alone, but for a series of incidents, of which this was the most recent.
He was! He was fired for all that, and for this most recent incident as well. He wasn't fired for a single incident alone, but for a series of incidents, of which this was the most recent.
[deleted]
>He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT.
I also saw those accusations, but I didn't see any proof of the harassment except one girl that said Stallman asked her on a date. And bothering? you really think you can go for 60 years on this earth without bothering any person?
I also saw those accusations, but I didn't see any proof of the harassment except one girl that said Stallman asked her on a date. And bothering? you really think you can go for 60 years on this earth without bothering any person?
You forgot the most terrible accusation of all. He had a mattress in his office. Really, I've seen this fact listed among other examples of RMS misconduct.
Ah yes! the "Implications".
For me, the implication of a mattress in his office are that he might sleep there. Any other implications are in the dirty mind of the accusers.
For me, the implication of a mattress in his office are that he might sleep there. Any other implications are in the dirty mind of the accusers.
RMS slept in his office for some time, in all these decades no one made anything out of it other than 'wow, how dedicated and odd that fellow is'. It wasn't some secret. And suddenly it gets pulled out of context by people who admit to having never met him as proof of something vague but nefarious. wtf.
I think the root of all of this is we use the same mental circuits when condemning sexual and hygienic misconduct. Someone called him creepy for publicly eating something from his foot - then in other circumstances the 'creepy' label was interpreted to be related to sex.
No, people have called him creepy for asking out MIT undergraduates and defending adults having sex with children.
> I believe the creepiness at MIT was not "asking undergraduates out" - it was threatening to kill himself of the undergraduate did not accept.
I've also done this, please don't get me fired. Well, I was 15 at the time, but perhaps still better socially adjusted than Stallman at 60.
I've also done this, please don't get me fired. Well, I was 15 at the time, but perhaps still better socially adjusted than Stallman at 60.
I believe the creepiness at MIT was not "asking undergraduates out" - it was threatening to kill himself if the undergraduate did not accept.
If true, that is deeply disturbing behavior.
If true, that is deeply disturbing behavior.
I agree. Some people dismiss it as a joke, though.
Which we know for a fact it was, seeing as the data didn't happen and RMS is still alive.
People are not perfectly consistent.
Not even RMS.
It seems more likely to me he made the threat legitimately, but chose not to follow through.
Do you have evidence for your assertion that it was a joke?
The woman who experienced it certainly didn't perceive it as one.
Not even RMS.
It seems more likely to me he made the threat legitimately, but chose not to follow through.
Do you have evidence for your assertion that it was a joke?
The woman who experienced it certainly didn't perceive it as one.
> It seems more likely to me he made the threat legitimately
If you genuinely think RMS was considering suicide over a date refusal, your likelyhood calibrations way off. He's weird, but he's not raving maniac. It is ok to exaggerate a little sometimes for the sake of argument, maybe, but really, there's bound of how far the credulity can be stretched.
> Do you have evidence for your assertion that it was a joke?
I just said it in my previous comment. Also, I've seen people. Virtually nobody, excepting gravely mentally ill people that are most likely already on heavy meds and being treated by psychiatrists, commits suicide over a date refusal from a random female.
> The woman who experienced it certainly didn't perceive it as one.
Not getting the joke is a common occurrence. I sometimes not get the jokes, even by professional comedians. And RMS never been a professional in this, so some rate of failure is expected. Making a huge deal out of it almost 40 years after it happened (to zero harm for anyone involved) is the insane part here. Especially as this seems to be the only documented episode of supposed myriads of harassment incidents RMS is supposedly famous for.
If you genuinely think RMS was considering suicide over a date refusal, your likelyhood calibrations way off. He's weird, but he's not raving maniac. It is ok to exaggerate a little sometimes for the sake of argument, maybe, but really, there's bound of how far the credulity can be stretched.
> Do you have evidence for your assertion that it was a joke?
I just said it in my previous comment. Also, I've seen people. Virtually nobody, excepting gravely mentally ill people that are most likely already on heavy meds and being treated by psychiatrists, commits suicide over a date refusal from a random female.
> The woman who experienced it certainly didn't perceive it as one.
Not getting the joke is a common occurrence. I sometimes not get the jokes, even by professional comedians. And RMS never been a professional in this, so some rate of failure is expected. Making a huge deal out of it almost 40 years after it happened (to zero harm for anyone involved) is the insane part here. Especially as this seems to be the only documented episode of supposed myriads of harassment incidents RMS is supposedly famous for.
I clearly misspoke, for which I am sorry.
My perspective is that he made the threat in bad faith - trying to coerce the girl into going out with him, but without a truly deep depression and intention to kill himself. I expect there was and is at least some depression there - perhaps he really did consider killing himself but decided not to.
I am unfortunately very used to seeing people try to hide obnoxious behavior behind "it was just a joke, calm down," when people take offense instead of giving them what they want, so I very rarely find that explanation satisfactory.
There are other things feeding into my assessment that I haven't gone into - a story of him picking out one of the few women in a lecture hall as an "Emacs Virgin" and saying that in the Church of Emacs it is blessed to lose your virginity. Yeah, that clearly was a joke, but it was a tasteless one that gives a little too much insight into his perspective.
There's also the photo of his MIT office nameplate that said something like "Knight For Justice (also: hot ladies)" which, yes, is probably a joke, but reads like one of those "ha ha, only serious" jokes oldschool hackers are rather known for, and is once again a joke he absolutely shouldn't have been making (especially not from a position of power).
There are also the various hints on his website over the years that he was (and perhaps still is) single and frustrated by that. An anecdote about his official non-girlfriend stands out in my memory, as I recall.
My perspective is that he made the threat in bad faith - trying to coerce the girl into going out with him, but without a truly deep depression and intention to kill himself. I expect there was and is at least some depression there - perhaps he really did consider killing himself but decided not to.
I am unfortunately very used to seeing people try to hide obnoxious behavior behind "it was just a joke, calm down," when people take offense instead of giving them what they want, so I very rarely find that explanation satisfactory.
There are other things feeding into my assessment that I haven't gone into - a story of him picking out one of the few women in a lecture hall as an "Emacs Virgin" and saying that in the Church of Emacs it is blessed to lose your virginity. Yeah, that clearly was a joke, but it was a tasteless one that gives a little too much insight into his perspective.
There's also the photo of his MIT office nameplate that said something like "Knight For Justice (also: hot ladies)" which, yes, is probably a joke, but reads like one of those "ha ha, only serious" jokes oldschool hackers are rather known for, and is once again a joke he absolutely shouldn't have been making (especially not from a position of power).
There are also the various hints on his website over the years that he was (and perhaps still is) single and frustrated by that. An anecdote about his official non-girlfriend stands out in my memory, as I recall.
"defending adults having sex with children" - this again - if I accuse you of having sex with children - then everyone who defends you is a creep? We don't know if Minsky had sex with Guiffre - from her deposition we only know that she was directed to seduce him that was (one of) Stallmans point.
[deleted]
Stallman's notes about pedophilia have nothing to do with Minsky and Giuffre.
So, wrongthink is what we are convicting him of? I disagree generally with his statement but reasonable people can disagree in a free society.
> asking out MIT undergraduates
Oh horror! How can a man be so depraved, so devoid of any common decency, so enthralled to his animalistic desires as to ask out a MIT undergraduate! Who'd even think such thing is possible in our enlightened time. We all thought we are way past MIT undergrads being asked out, but here we go again.
Oh horror! How can a man be so depraved, so devoid of any common decency, so enthralled to his animalistic desires as to ask out a MIT undergraduate! Who'd even think such thing is possible in our enlightened time. We all thought we are way past MIT undergrads being asked out, but here we go again.
> people have called him creepy for asking out MIT undergraduates
So every male at MIT is creepy then.
> defending adults having sex with children.
He was just arguing about the science available at the moment and even links the study on his website (everything is still there, he is not hiding anything)
So every male at MIT is creepy then.
> defending adults having sex with children.
He was just arguing about the science available at the moment and even links the study on his website (everything is still there, he is not hiding anything)
rayiner(3)
Most men at MIT aren't asking out people less than half their age.
Most men at MIT are not RMS and nobody create legends on them.
Because nobody knows them.
But if it is creepy for RMS, it is for anyone else who did it.
Where is the outrage?
Half their age is perfectly legit if one is 25 and the other is 50.
You should be more precise.
Because nobody knows them.
But if it is creepy for RMS, it is for anyone else who did it.
Where is the outrage?
Half their age is perfectly legit if one is 25 and the other is 50.
You should be more precise.
And that happened in the 80s so RMS was around 30. So it's more like 30-year-old asking out 21-year-old.
I don't believe every highly-esteemed man (whether a professor or someone with another well-regarded position) is asking undergrads out.
I believe most of the men in positions of some power and acclaim at MIT aren't asking undergrads out, and yes, those that are shouldn't be in that position of power and/or acclaim.
I believe most of the men in positions of some power and acclaim at MIT aren't asking undergrads out, and yes, those that are shouldn't be in that position of power and/or acclaim.
He has never been a professor. And its certainly news for me that it is prohibited for males of highly regarded position to ask out females (which aren't dependent on them in professional or any other capacity and he's not doing it in a workplace or in other inappropriate environment).
> yes, those that are shouldn't be in that position of power and/or acclaim.
Why not? What's bad in asking a female student out? Is it some sort of crime for males to date females? Is it something only low-level males not occupying any positions allowed to do? It is bad if someone tries to use their power to coerce a female to a date, but if he just asks, and the female is not dependent on him in any way and is free to refuse if she doesn't find him attractive - what exactly is the problem here?
> yes, those that are shouldn't be in that position of power and/or acclaim.
Why not? What's bad in asking a female student out? Is it some sort of crime for males to date females? Is it something only low-level males not occupying any positions allowed to do? It is bad if someone tries to use their power to coerce a female to a date, but if he just asks, and the female is not dependent on him in any way and is free to refuse if she doesn't find him attractive - what exactly is the problem here?
Yes. Next question.
> I don't believe every highly-esteemed man is asking undergrads out
Seriously?
Epstein was really well-esteemed.
Weinstein was very well-esteemed
Polansky was very well-esteemed
Ethan Zuckerman (MIT) was very well-esteemed
Stallman did nothing of the sort.
They are just legends built around a weird guy who comes out creepy when tries to be friendly.
And they started because he was not popular in college but usually right
People hate the outcasts that expose their faults in public
It ruins their projected image
It hurts their giant ego
BTW: I've been young and creepy sometimes to women, they've been creepy to me (one even stalked me and my girlfriend), most of the time we've been cool around each other.
"She said, he said" is a very bad way to evaluate a person in an objective way.
"They told me that one time" it's the beginning of everyone's life, when you are 66 and lived the life Stallman has lived, that one time, repeated over and over, becomes almost a truth.
It's like John Lennon saying "The best drummer in the world? Ringo is not even the best drummer in The Beatles"
Or Ozzy Osbourne eating bats
Or Van Halen's "no brown M&M's" rule
Seriously?
Epstein was really well-esteemed.
Weinstein was very well-esteemed
Polansky was very well-esteemed
Ethan Zuckerman (MIT) was very well-esteemed
Stallman did nothing of the sort.
They are just legends built around a weird guy who comes out creepy when tries to be friendly.
And they started because he was not popular in college but usually right
People hate the outcasts that expose their faults in public
It ruins their projected image
It hurts their giant ego
BTW: I've been young and creepy sometimes to women, they've been creepy to me (one even stalked me and my girlfriend), most of the time we've been cool around each other.
"She said, he said" is a very bad way to evaluate a person in an objective way.
"They told me that one time" it's the beginning of everyone's life, when you are 66 and lived the life Stallman has lived, that one time, repeated over and over, becomes almost a truth.
It's like John Lennon saying "The best drummer in the world? Ringo is not even the best drummer in The Beatles"
Or Ozzy Osbourne eating bats
Or Van Halen's "no brown M&M's" rule
Is this to say, "RS sometimes slept at the office to get more done, but the mattress weirded some people out" or "RS had a mattress in his office, which is evidence he used it to put female colleagues through unsavory casting-couch situations"? I cannot tell.
Can't tell if you're being serious. Having a mattress in your office is weird but does not imply misconduct at at all.
Not only that, but anything that can happen on a mattress can happen on a couch. Lots of offices have couches.
Isn't he known for wearing IT conventions t-shirts, his fear of water and sleeping in his own office?
Plus the healthy snacks his feet provide
Plus the healthy snacks his feet provide
My personal favorite RMS faux pas is this: https://youtu.be/Rhj8sh1uiDY?t=98
This is the kind of fearless leader we need in the software world.
This is the kind of fearless leader we need in the software world.
Two years ago or so, I met and spoke to people whose offices were down the hall from his at MIT. Their stories line up perfectly with the accusations against him. Just because you weren't aware of his awfulness doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Ok, but which accusations do you have in mind here? That he harassed woman, that he was creepy or rather general opinions about sex with minors? Because I am a bit confused of what means what.
I heard about advice given to some women to keep plants, so that he does not come. But that is not the same as story about Stallman harassing someone, it is story about people thinking he is creep, but no specific on anything he was supposed to do to women without plants (hope the difference is clear).
I heard about advice given to some women to keep plants, so that he does not come. But that is not the same as story about Stallman harassing someone, it is story about people thinking he is creep, but no specific on anything he was supposed to do to women without plants (hope the difference is clear).
This is pure libel.
You are repeating defamatory rumours without a shred of evidence.
You are repeating defamatory rumours without a shred of evidence.
Please be specific about the stories. What exactly were you told?
He has harrassed (non-sexually, just aggressively) a close coworker of mine over several weeks. So I don't want to think how he might treat women.
What form did this harassament take?
Constant harassment via private mails while maintaining a civil facade on the mailing list. Personal aggression and threats of lawsuits.
Said who? The basic accusation was that he was creepy (which is not really an objective problem, much less an offence...). This was illustrated by things like him having a matress in his office and him allegedly (and drunkenly) hitting on a student back in the 80s in a very bad way.
If you consider that the "viral" posts, which apparently triggered this, contained a warning of the like "if minors read this, please turn away, you might be shocked at the idea of a 17y/o having sex with an adult", you generally get the spirit of the whole thing. This has nothing to do with equality and freedom anymore, it's just about creating an "ideal" society (probably with procreation happening only after getting blessed by a priest).
This medium article talks about a few people (though mostly anonymous). https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
April Glaser on Twitter specifically talks about accusations against him: https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1174093253433380864
Here's the reality though, every woman who steps up and admits publicly is probably going to get harassed. Some fuckheads on the internet are going to bother her and harass them. I imagine the # of public complaints is going to be pretty low.
April Glaser on Twitter specifically talks about accusations against him: https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1174093253433380864
Here's the reality though, every woman who steps up and admits publicly is probably going to get harassed. Some fuckheads on the internet are going to bother her and harass them. I imagine the # of public complaints is going to be pretty low.
Ok, so I misjudged the post I answered to as equating "harassment" = "sexual harassment" (which there is no real indication for except for the "I'll kill myself"-episode which many also would not consider sexual harassment and which really depends on the circumstance 40a back...)? Also I'd really like to know how a bad joke ("if he's hitting on you, say you are a vi user") is indication of abusive/inappropriate behavior without producing a single real case of such?
Somehow the definition of harassment used by a wide variety of people seems to be "I don't like his opinion" if I judge from the linked twitter post... If it goes forward this way I could picture people rallying in front of libraries and burning a lot of books. Would someone please enlighten me how "Lolita" is any less worse than RMS-ramblings?
That then also explains paragraph 3, since when you "step up" claiming you got harassed and it turns out you just disagree with the offendees opinion/behavior at large, you are harassed again by people disagreeing with you... This is kind of brain-dead but apparently a certain kind of reality happening on this planet called "earth"...
Somehow the definition of harassment used by a wide variety of people seems to be "I don't like his opinion" if I judge from the linked twitter post... If it goes forward this way I could picture people rallying in front of libraries and burning a lot of books. Would someone please enlighten me how "Lolita" is any less worse than RMS-ramblings?
That then also explains paragraph 3, since when you "step up" claiming you got harassed and it turns out you just disagree with the offendees opinion/behavior at large, you are harassed again by people disagreeing with you... This is kind of brain-dead but apparently a certain kind of reality happening on this planet called "earth"...
yeah, I know why he was forced to resign, the creepiness only was the part spilling everything over. The US attitude to sexuality is apparently still stuck at the point, when the Mayflower landed in New England (at least for everything "heteronormative"). And that is definitively not a good thing...
Stallman never seemed like a regular guy to me. I’ve met people who are “neurally atypical” and they have weird/bad behaviour.
There was even a case in Melbourne where a slightly mentally impaired man was accused of sexual harassment because he’d try and be friendly to everyone and it came off wrong.
I’d like to think we’d have some amount of compassion for these people and help them function in society.
There was even a case in Melbourne where a slightly mentally impaired man was accused of sexual harassment because he’d try and be friendly to everyone and it came off wrong.
I’d like to think we’d have some amount of compassion for these people and help them function in society.
Telling someone you're going to kill yourself if they don't date you is clearly just trying to be friendly.
I too am autistic, and it does not excuse this behaviour. Yes people should have compassion and patience with neurodivergent people, and everyone has been with Stallman. This is not one incident, but a string of incidents that show an underlying pattern.
I too am autistic, and it does not excuse this behaviour. Yes people should have compassion and patience with neurodivergent people, and everyone has been with Stallman. This is not one incident, but a string of incidents that show an underlying pattern.
>Telling someone you're going to kill yourself if they don't date you is clearly just trying to be friendly.
Exactly, it just looks like a joke, banter to lighten the situation. It all depends on context, that we don't have.
Exactly, it just looks like a joke, banter to lighten the situation. It all depends on context, that we don't have.
The person he told it to reported him so clearly it wasn't received as a joke.
Indeed, but that might just be them thinking suicide (or threats of suicide) shouldn't be joked about.
People really should find and pass around a link to a full writeup of that event rather than relaying rumours.
People really should find and pass around a link to a full writeup of that event rather than relaying rumours.
when did she report him? 40 years later? My memory is already fading for interactions just 5 years back, much more drunken interactions...
> I too am autistic
So am I and I often come off as awkward with a list of misinterpretations to the point of having a "do not interact with this person as they won't understand" list to avoid it.
His behaviour is typical of someone with an foot on the spectrum and I don't see too much oddity in his behaviour. He's obsessed with meaning of words, comes off the wrong way, seemingly no social manners by most standards yet it's incredibly consistent which hints to different interpretations of social interaction.
His behaviour isn't "problematic" in this case, rather, it's correct in a desire for exactness.
So am I and I often come off as awkward with a list of misinterpretations to the point of having a "do not interact with this person as they won't understand" list to avoid it.
His behaviour is typical of someone with an foot on the spectrum and I don't see too much oddity in his behaviour. He's obsessed with meaning of words, comes off the wrong way, seemingly no social manners by most standards yet it's incredibly consistent which hints to different interpretations of social interaction.
His behaviour isn't "problematic" in this case, rather, it's correct in a desire for exactness.
> I too am autistic
I heard this a lot - people on the spectrum damning Stallman. But isn't it called a spectrum for a reason?
I heard this a lot - people on the spectrum damning Stallman. But isn't it called a spectrum for a reason?
[deleted]
>> Telling someone you're going to kill yourself if they don't date you is clearly just trying to be friendly.
Given the number of movies where this happens, i'd be very surprised that did not happen in reality from time to time, and that it is considered unacceptable.
Given the number of movies where this happens, i'd be very surprised that did not happen in reality from time to time, and that it is considered unacceptable.
People also get shot in movies all the time, do you think that too should be acceptable behaviour?
The difference is that people who shoot others without a good reason would get punished even in the movie world. The creepy "romance" thing often ends up being rewarded in the movie world instead.
I think whether something is or isn't acceptable very much depends on the people involved. Though, I also find it unacceptable, just like you.
I think whether something is or isn't acceptable very much depends on the people involved. Though, I also find it unacceptable, just like you.
Most action heroes would spend years in prison had they done the same thing in real life. Movie "good reason" for shooting someone, beating someone or stealing a car would not cut it in real justice system at all.
> Telling someone you're going to kill yourself if they don't date you is clearly just trying to be friendly.
In fact I have strong compassion for those calling it an aggression.
their life must be miserable if they can't take a simple thing like that.
It happened to me more than one time, one of them stalked me, I never called them "aggresive bitches", they just had a few problems expressing emotions, that's it and I calmly explained to them why we couldn't be together.
If you really are autistic, you should know what it means trying to be like everybody else when you're different.
In fact I have strong compassion for those calling it an aggression.
their life must be miserable if they can't take a simple thing like that.
It happened to me more than one time, one of them stalked me, I never called them "aggresive bitches", they just had a few problems expressing emotions, that's it and I calmly explained to them why we couldn't be together.
If you really are autistic, you should know what it means trying to be like everybody else when you're different.
[deleted]
> He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT.
In the ideal world any claim like this would be backed up with evidence.
In the ideal world any claim like this would be backed up with evidence.
First person accounts are evidence. Some have witnesses.
What I mean is that if you post that person X did Y on HN (or elsewhere), you attach links that prove this fact. In other words, [citation needed]
I've never heard anything like this. Can you provide more information please?
I have YEARS ago, at least a decade. Nothing horrible, just the usual like ignoring questions from women or something like that. But enough to not make me surprised in the least to hear more like that.
I don't see where that article mentions that "[h]e's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT."
* Thought police at work. This says bad things. Believe them. NOW *
It's fascinating how this guy just posted the same unrelated link under two comments. Just like facebook trolls...
> He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT.
No, he didn't.
Thomas Lord who worked with him says
> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior. The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle in and around the organization was feminized and all the stronger for it.
https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1243.1-1359.221
No, he didn't.
Thomas Lord who worked with him says
> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior. The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle in and around the organization was feminized and all the stronger for it.
https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1243.1-1359.221
> No, he didn't.
Of course he did (and does). It's well known. Here's HN from 11 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20979343
I have personally read, in the last few weeks, over a dozen statements by women who were driven out of FSF by Stallman.
I don't even move in those circles. There must be many more who don't feel like speaking up and getting harassed by all the neckbeards.
Richard Stallman, Knight for Justice - Also Hot Ladies
https://miro.medium.com/max/4080/1*lDSkAjF1958TpEafxuJsLg.jp...
Of course he did (and does). It's well known. Here's HN from 11 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20979343
I have personally read, in the last few weeks, over a dozen statements by women who were driven out of FSF by Stallman.
I don't even move in those circles. There must be many more who don't feel like speaking up and getting harassed by all the neckbeards.
Richard Stallman, Knight for Justice - Also Hot Ladies
https://miro.medium.com/max/4080/1*lDSkAjF1958TpEafxuJsLg.jp...
> Of course he did (and does). It's well known. Here's HN from 11 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20979343
And I've personally spoken with 4 of them that say the exact opposite.
Drop some name please, accusations need proof.
> I don't even move in those circles
I do.
> Richard Stallman, Knight for Justice - Also Hot Ladies
Old joke, stupid sign, nothing severe, it's been there forever together with the sticker of Amnesty International (if you haven't noticed), nobody complained for ages, suddenly high paid engineers that without GCC wouldn't have the same high paid job complain that RMS makes them feel uncomfortable, even though they "don't even move in those circles"
Let's be serious, please don't make me quote Roger Murtaugh.
And I've personally spoken with 4 of them that say the exact opposite.
Drop some name please, accusations need proof.
> I don't even move in those circles
I do.
> Richard Stallman, Knight for Justice - Also Hot Ladies
Old joke, stupid sign, nothing severe, it's been there forever together with the sticker of Amnesty International (if you haven't noticed), nobody complained for ages, suddenly high paid engineers that without GCC wouldn't have the same high paid job complain that RMS makes them feel uncomfortable, even though they "don't even move in those circles"
Let's be serious, please don't make me quote Roger Murtaugh.
> And I've personally spoken with 4 of them that say the exact opposite.
The four that you know may not have attracted RMS' attention.
> Drop some name please, accusations need proof.
It's up to the alleged victims to go public, if they so wish, IMHO. (Though announcing un-sourced / anonymously-sourced claims isn't exactly a great thing either.)
The four that you know may not have attracted RMS' attention.
> Drop some name please, accusations need proof.
It's up to the alleged victims to go public, if they so wish, IMHO. (Though announcing un-sourced / anonymously-sourced claims isn't exactly a great thing either.)
Anonymous accusations should be treated as worthless for obvious reasons.
> The four that you know may not have attracted RMS' attention
so he can control himself.
He doesn't just throw himself at every woman that comes around.
Just like the rest of us...
> It's up to the alleged victims to go public
Fact is, I don't think they even exist.
Not because victims do no exist in general, but because at worse RMS has been weird or inappropriate, but dangerous, threatening, scary or violent?
It never happened.
I'm sure.
so he can control himself.
He doesn't just throw himself at every woman that comes around.
Just like the rest of us...
> It's up to the alleged victims to go public
Fact is, I don't think they even exist.
Not because victims do no exist in general, but because at worse RMS has been weird or inappropriate, but dangerous, threatening, scary or violent?
It never happened.
I'm sure.
Yes, he did. There are other articles mentioned here that prove it.
> Yes, he did. There are other articles mentioned here that prove it.
Let's see them then.
I'm sure there are real testimonies of real people.
Let's see them then.
I'm sure there are real testimonies of real people.
For general levels of complaints, I would recommend waiting for sociopolitical progress.
For the moment, I recommend we stick to just legal standards. (Such as if he drugged/raped someone, the way Cosby and Weinstein did.)
What did he do, exactly?
For the moment, I recommend we stick to just legal standards. (Such as if he drugged/raped someone, the way Cosby and Weinstein did.)
What did he do, exactly?
> Weinstein
Has he been convicted of something now?
Has he been convicted of something now?
In a same world a reply like that would be taken to court and litigated for the slander that it is.
In what sense do you think that his entire life’s work has been negated?
He has stepped down as head of the Free Software Foundation and his name is being dragged through the mud. There are many out there who will try their hardest to remove him from GNU as well.
I uninstalled gnu + linux and switched to windows.
Thug life! :-)
But why would you punish yourself for someone else's acts?
But why would you punish yourself for someone else's acts?
I realize this is a joke thread, but in all seriousness people completely stopped using ReiserFS after Hans Reiser was jailed for murder - despite the filesystem's great performance under some workloads (I believe it was best in breed for small files). I wonder if the effect would have been so dramatic if it hadn't literally been named after him - people aren't necessarily logical about these things.
Of course, that moment's hesitation when picking a filesystem in an installer menu is quite different from choosing an OS :)
Of course, that moment's hesitation when picking a filesystem in an installer menu is quite different from choosing an OS :)
Reiser3 was in maintenance mode and Reiser4 was unstable.[1]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150921073059/article.gmane.org...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150921073059/article.gmane.org...
Er, aren't all filesystems either "in maintenance mode" or "unstable"?
Sh*t, I'm using Btrfs which is not in maintenance mode.
Some are stable but continue to evolve.
I indeed can see myself boycotting a project on moral grounds if there is a decent alternative (and even without a decent alternative in some cases, I guess)
... perhaps it's time to learn some BSD?
But it wasn't the only comment right?
That article is so bizarre. The author repeatedly rephrased the claim that you can disagree with Stallman’s political beliefs and expressions while still supporting his beliefs about free software. Is anyone disputing that???
This author is the same idiot behind boycottnovell (https://web.archive.org/web/20070711171212/http://boycottnov...), a campaign against Miguel Icaza, Mono developers, and Novell, for developing Mono (a free and open source C# / .NET implementation), and later for generally existing (along with anything inspired by C#, logically, and anything resembling the Windows Registry).
Obviously all a conspiracy by the diabolical Bill Gates, who definitely has time for such important conspiracies, and his evil corporation M$, to "infiltrate" Gnooo Slash Linux and take over the world. Roy Schestowitz has yet to do anything positive for free software. But, rest assured, he probably doesn't have a real PhD.
Edit: To be fair, Mono was kind of shit at the time, for purely technical reasons, and it was threatening to be used in ridiculous places despite that. That didn't happen in the end, again for technical reasons. It has steadily improved since then, and Microsoft's position around the Mono project obviously changed for the better. That, and Microsoft really didn't have trouble suing people for using Linux anyway (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-samsung-elec-se...). So he's not exactly wrong, in broad strokes. Just terrible. In an alternate universe, perhaps Roy Schestowitz's army of neckbeards would be remembered for saving the day instead.
Obviously all a conspiracy by the diabolical Bill Gates, who definitely has time for such important conspiracies, and his evil corporation M$, to "infiltrate" Gnooo Slash Linux and take over the world. Roy Schestowitz has yet to do anything positive for free software. But, rest assured, he probably doesn't have a real PhD.
Edit: To be fair, Mono was kind of shit at the time, for purely technical reasons, and it was threatening to be used in ridiculous places despite that. That didn't happen in the end, again for technical reasons. It has steadily improved since then, and Microsoft's position around the Mono project obviously changed for the better. That, and Microsoft really didn't have trouble suing people for using Linux anyway (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-samsung-elec-se...). So he's not exactly wrong, in broad strokes. Just terrible. In an alternate universe, perhaps Roy Schestowitz's army of neckbeards would be remembered for saving the day instead.
[deleted]
This (latest) RMS incident is the confluence of The Structure of Presidential Scandals and Outrage Culture.
The personal, character failings of public figures are tolerated until they run out of goodwill. Then a "scandal" occurs. Nothing new is actually discovered. We always knew about President Clinton's extra marital stuff. It just didn't matter, until it did.
I don't have anything useful to add about Outrage Culture. Along with everyone else, I'm still trying to figure it out. Closest analogy I can think of is candidate Gary Hart put his head in the lion's mouth one too many times.
--
My take on RMS is a little bit, um, unconventional. Having never met him, I imagine he's somewhere between neurotypical and an ultimatist and a square peg in a world of round holes. His pedantry regarding Minsky wasn't wrong, exactly. It was just unwittingly in bad taste. A common recurrence for RMS.
Unfortunately for RMS, this time it mattered. Per the bit about scandals above; public opinion towards RMS crossed some unmarked tipping point, and he doesn't have enough allies to help save his public image.
RMS will be fine.
And I'm actually okay with this kind of court of public opinion. I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant. If RMS can't or won't, then it's his time to sit down, and let someone more palatable serve as arrow catcher for a while (the job of the ultimatist).
The personal, character failings of public figures are tolerated until they run out of goodwill. Then a "scandal" occurs. Nothing new is actually discovered. We always knew about President Clinton's extra marital stuff. It just didn't matter, until it did.
I don't have anything useful to add about Outrage Culture. Along with everyone else, I'm still trying to figure it out. Closest analogy I can think of is candidate Gary Hart put his head in the lion's mouth one too many times.
--
My take on RMS is a little bit, um, unconventional. Having never met him, I imagine he's somewhere between neurotypical and an ultimatist and a square peg in a world of round holes. His pedantry regarding Minsky wasn't wrong, exactly. It was just unwittingly in bad taste. A common recurrence for RMS.
Unfortunately for RMS, this time it mattered. Per the bit about scandals above; public opinion towards RMS crossed some unmarked tipping point, and he doesn't have enough allies to help save his public image.
RMS will be fine.
And I'm actually okay with this kind of court of public opinion. I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant. If RMS can't or won't, then it's his time to sit down, and let someone more palatable serve as arrow catcher for a while (the job of the ultimatist).
If your dead friend gets accused of something in a wrong/misleading fassion it is in bad taste to defend them?
> I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant
No you really don't want your public figures to try and optimize for things that result in good public opinion, though outlining my reasoning for this would probably be around 2000 words, so not doable on a phone. (I started writing, then realized how big a topic that is)
> I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant
No you really don't want your public figures to try and optimize for things that result in good public opinion, though outlining my reasoning for this would probably be around 2000 words, so not doable on a phone. (I started writing, then realized how big a topic that is)
Play in the mud, you're gonna get dirty.
RMS could have demanded an investigation. Wait for the firestorm to subside.
"you really don't want your public figures to try and optimize for things that result in good public opinion"
Ya. I really do. Progress marches on, social norms adapt.
Despite the recurring inevitable oversteer, currently manifesting as outrage culture, no way I want to go back in time.
RMS could have demanded an investigation. Wait for the firestorm to subside.
"you really don't want your public figures to try and optimize for things that result in good public opinion"
Ya. I really do. Progress marches on, social norms adapt.
Despite the recurring inevitable oversteer, currently manifesting as outrage culture, no way I want to go back in time.
Mea culpa. I imagined RMS to be an oblivious geek who can't seem to STFU. I was wrong. I regret the error.
My only excuse is that I really didn't want RMS to be a bad guy, like ESR.
Be wary of heroes. They'll disappoint you.
My only excuse is that I really didn't want RMS to be a bad guy, like ESR.
Be wary of heroes. They'll disappoint you.
FWIW, there's some decent evidence that the Hart 'Monkey Business' thing was a set-up: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/was-gar...
> doesn't ruin RMS.
He's perfectly capable of doing that himself.
There was a time where his style of firebrand-like vitriol against proprietary software was crucial. But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
The real crux is this, "computing" and free software is not the preserve of academia anymore. It should be for everyone. Which means getting rid of deliberately antagonistic behaviour.
It serves noone.
I want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad. But they can't do that if we cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes. There is just no need anymore. It doesn't work, it doesn't make for better code.
Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
No, that kind of behaviour has to stop.
He's perfectly capable of doing that himself.
There was a time where his style of firebrand-like vitriol against proprietary software was crucial. But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
The real crux is this, "computing" and free software is not the preserve of academia anymore. It should be for everyone. Which means getting rid of deliberately antagonistic behaviour.
It serves noone.
I want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad. But they can't do that if we cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes. There is just no need anymore. It doesn't work, it doesn't make for better code.
Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
No, that kind of behaviour has to stop.
>There was a time where his style of firebrand-like vitriol against proprietary software was crucial. But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
What the fuck? What percentage of consumer computing devices in the world are running free software? Windows+OSX+iOS+Android account for >96% of market share. In what world, in what possible conception, did GNU/Linux "win"?
>GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
Like: free phone OS, decentralization, federation and self-hosting, real-time voice and video chat, accessibility, an AI assistant. [1]
>cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes.
>Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
Again, what the fuck, am I seriously missing something here, or when did Stallman ever "abuse" someone? How is he a "psychopath"? A "bully"? A "nastie" (what is this, 2nd grade)?
[1]: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/
What the fuck? What percentage of consumer computing devices in the world are running free software? Windows+OSX+iOS+Android account for >96% of market share. In what world, in what possible conception, did GNU/Linux "win"?
>GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
Like: free phone OS, decentralization, federation and self-hosting, real-time voice and video chat, accessibility, an AI assistant. [1]
>cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes.
>Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
Again, what the fuck, am I seriously missing something here, or when did Stallman ever "abuse" someone? How is he a "psychopath"? A "bully"? A "nastie" (what is this, 2nd grade)?
[1]: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/
So now RMS is abusing people? Citation, please?
I'm sorry, but being a rude and obnoxious person doesn't mean the local lynch mob gets to decide when you have to step down from the foundation you created in the name of ensuring human freedom for generations to come.
Linux has hardly "won". Most of my friends and coworkers use Mac or Windows. Your post is filled with short-sighted, opinionated nonsense.
RMS continues to fight the good fight despite the public turning on him so readily.
I'm sorry, but being a rude and obnoxious person doesn't mean the local lynch mob gets to decide when you have to step down from the foundation you created in the name of ensuring human freedom for generations to come.
Linux has hardly "won". Most of my friends and coworkers use Mac or Windows. Your post is filled with short-sighted, opinionated nonsense.
RMS continues to fight the good fight despite the public turning on him so readily.
> I'm sorry, but being a rude and obnoxious person doesn't mean the local lynch mob gets to decide when you have to step down from the foundation you created in the name of ensuring human freedom for generations to come.
No, but considering that his is a position of mostly PR and management nowadays, the majority of the community can agree that having a rude and obnoxious person as their visible head is neither doing any favors to their external image nor helping them move forward internally.
Linux has won in the server (and others) by being the better technical product. Linux has lost the desktop war (and laptop, and mobile unless you count android) by being the inferior product in terms of UX, ease of use and in general ignoring everything that isn't pure technical areas. As the parent comment said, this was fine when tech was mostly isolated from mainstream users, but it doesn't cut it anymore. We need new kinds of people, and new visions, for new kinds of challenges.
This is not a judgement of him as a person or his former work, mind you. It's a judgement of the qualities that we'd hope for in a leader/public face and whether RMS fits the role nowadays.
No, but considering that his is a position of mostly PR and management nowadays, the majority of the community can agree that having a rude and obnoxious person as their visible head is neither doing any favors to their external image nor helping them move forward internally.
Linux has won in the server (and others) by being the better technical product. Linux has lost the desktop war (and laptop, and mobile unless you count android) by being the inferior product in terms of UX, ease of use and in general ignoring everything that isn't pure technical areas. As the parent comment said, this was fine when tech was mostly isolated from mainstream users, but it doesn't cut it anymore. We need new kinds of people, and new visions, for new kinds of challenges.
This is not a judgement of him as a person or his former work, mind you. It's a judgement of the qualities that we'd hope for in a leader/public face and whether RMS fits the role nowadays.
> majority of the community can agree
I am unaware we voted on this topic.
Also Linux won on the server because it is free as in beer.
I am unaware we voted on this topic.
Also Linux won on the server because it is free as in beer.
>But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
Maybe if you get formal education or go to a boot camp to learn software development. The "future of computing" is in walled gardens like Chromebooks, iPads or Windows S. Not allowing software development on them is part of the added value. Google plans on getting rid of Linux and replace it with Fuchsia once it has matured.
Maybe if you get formal education or go to a boot camp to learn software development. The "future of computing" is in walled gardens like Chromebooks, iPads or Windows S. Not allowing software development on them is part of the added value. Google plans on getting rid of Linux and replace it with Fuchsia once it has matured.
> GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
Not in any real sense. There is a lot of open source[1] software in use but the current state of computing doesn't have much to do with freedom.
Open Source may have won, Free Software hasn't.
Not in any real sense. There is a lot of open source[1] software in use but the current state of computing doesn't have much to do with freedom.
Open Source may have won, Free Software hasn't.
Comparing RMS to Jobs and Ballmer is a joke. RMS is way more capable and he devoted his personal life for the sake of good. Jobs and Ballmer are just business people.
'Just business'? That is an understatment. Jobs' work redefined business in several product categories. That's not 'just business'. Jobs should be admired for his business skill, even though if you don't like the walled garden he put up.
> was a time where his style of firebrand-like vitriol against proprietary software was crucial. But that time is over
[citation needed]
Anyway, even if it was true, has him become disposable?
> want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad
Maybe your dad wasn't such a great person for other people except you though.
Maybe I would prefer my kids being more like RMS than me or your dad or you.
What you want it's irrelevant.
> who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes
he's been bullied all of his life, because he never conformed to any norm.
And there are people like you keep doing that.
There's that too.
[citation needed]
Anyway, even if it was true, has him become disposable?
> want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad
Maybe your dad wasn't such a great person for other people except you though.
Maybe I would prefer my kids being more like RMS than me or your dad or you.
What you want it's irrelevant.
> who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes
he's been bullied all of his life, because he never conformed to any norm.
And there are people like you keep doing that.
There's that too.
If, my dear lostjohnny, were to read those sentences as a whole, you would be able to grasp the point
I don't want my children to be in a workplace run my angry bullies. I don't want anyone's kids to be run by angry bullies. But then you knew that already, you're a clever sausage really.
> And there are people like you keep doing that.
are you seriously trying to gatekeep non-conformism.
I don't want my children to be in a workplace run my angry bullies. I don't want anyone's kids to be run by angry bullies. But then you knew that already, you're a clever sausage really.
> And there are people like you keep doing that.
are you seriously trying to gatekeep non-conformism.
RMS's problem is that he's too honest and anything involving women and rape is just not worth even commenting on at this point. His point was that a willing person shouldn't be considered raped based on the country they're in or the uptick from 17 to 18. I personally believe 25 is a better cutoff age for this.
I get his point, but we have to draw lines somewhere, even if they're imperfect. It's like saying speed limits don't stop all speeding, or gun laws don't prevent all gun violence. Of course not, but in both cases we have to try. We have to try to protect minors whose brains aren't fully developed as well, even if pedophiles don't like it.
RMS did walk back his comments after speaking with close friends of his on the subject, essentially agreeing with what I'm saying here.
I get his point, but we have to draw lines somewhere, even if they're imperfect. It's like saying speed limits don't stop all speeding, or gun laws don't prevent all gun violence. Of course not, but in both cases we have to try. We have to try to protect minors whose brains aren't fully developed as well, even if pedophiles don't like it.
RMS did walk back his comments after speaking with close friends of his on the subject, essentially agreeing with what I'm saying here.
in situations like this "one bad cluster of comments" isn't considered a mistake or a lapse in judgement but a symptom of what a person actually thinks. RMS more than likely did not form those opinions on the spot and then forgot he had them afterward. and RMS has a public history that is congruent with those opinions and how he presented them.
im sure it leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths what the leader of GNU has done and how he thinks.
im sure it leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths what the leader of GNU has done and how he thinks.
Yep. Damn thought police.
Yep, spot on. And as I said earlier, RMS's crime is that he doesn't condemn unequivocally and totally, (i.e. without judgment), what is perceived as unacceptable by the society.
RMS loves freedom more than many of us, that's why "consent" is so important to him (I guess).
RMS loves freedom more than many of us, that's why "consent" is so important to him (I guess).
Freedom ends where it restricts other people’s freedom and freedom doesn’t mean that there are no consequences. If you question that child rape should be punished, you have to live with the consequences.
I think something that I haven’t heard people say is that firing him only addresses the emotional reaction to the abuse that happened but may actually make the problem more common in the future.
Part of what gave Epistine the ability to do what he did was the fear people had of speaking about what they understood to be reality when they knew it would upset their coworkers or employers.
RMS’s lack of that fear (regardless of wether his ideas truly corresponded with reality) is what got him fired. This demonstrates that those fears aren’t unfounded and empowers certain kinds of extremely abusive people far more than any semantic argument about rape or pedophilia could.
Part of what gave Epistine the ability to do what he did was the fear people had of speaking about what they understood to be reality when they knew it would upset their coworkers or employers.
RMS’s lack of that fear (regardless of wether his ideas truly corresponded with reality) is what got him fired. This demonstrates that those fears aren’t unfounded and empowers certain kinds of extremely abusive people far more than any semantic argument about rape or pedophilia could.
Double standards leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Care to add something more substantial?
As a person that only knows RMS through his coding, what should I read to understand the context here? I'm not interested in reading foggy comments, tbh.
Men of vision never get the benefit of the doubt ;)
Which people specifically are you referring to?
It was just the last few drop needed to let the pot boil over. RMS has been criticized for years for being a child rape apologist.
It wasn't just a cluster of comments. Stallman not only harassed women and made them uncomfortable, he outright fired a transgender woman from the FSF for reporting her transphobic coworker who kept harassing her. Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people leap to the defense of people in positions of institutional and cultural power who behave in a way that disempowers and dehumanizes marginalized people.
See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133...
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people leap to the defense of people in positions of institutional and cultural power who behave in a way that disempowers and dehumanizes marginalized people.
See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133...
> Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
I'm sorry, but this isn't a prerequisite for working in the software industry. You are not allowed to vilify someone over having an opinion about gender, just like you shouldn't fire someone for having a different opinion on it than you.
"Leah was at the time struggling with gender dysphoria and substance abuse. Since then, she has been managing these issues. She agrees that her behaviour was rash and is determined to find a unifying solution."
The people involved have moved on. The internet, however, is still trying to sling mud where there is none in an embarrassing display of social lynching and lack of loyalty to people who have done so much for human freedom.
I'm sorry, but this isn't a prerequisite for working in the software industry. You are not allowed to vilify someone over having an opinion about gender, just like you shouldn't fire someone for having a different opinion on it than you.
"Leah was at the time struggling with gender dysphoria and substance abuse. Since then, she has been managing these issues. She agrees that her behaviour was rash and is determined to find a unifying solution."
The people involved have moved on. The internet, however, is still trying to sling mud where there is none in an embarrassing display of social lynching and lack of loyalty to people who have done so much for human freedom.
I don't know anything about the RMS incident -- but I work for a public university system in California, and last time I had the mandatory every-other-year sexual harassment prevention training, it said it was un-lawful for me not to use a person's identified pronouns.
They're not being entirely honest with you. That's not what the law says. However, you are an at-will employee, and if they document that you make another employee uncomfortable for not respecting their preferred pronoun, you can be fired.
It's not un-lawful however. If you asked them during the training for a specific law and a pointer to why they thought that it was un-lawful, you'd see pretty quickly they didn't actually have the force of law behind them.
I've been through a lot of training both at UC and in industry and a bunch of what is said simply isn't true. WHen I challenged the instructors, it became pretty clear they were just reading a script without any understanding of the actual laws and rules behind what they were saying.
It's not un-lawful however. If you asked them during the training for a specific law and a pointer to why they thought that it was un-lawful, you'd see pretty quickly they didn't actually have the force of law behind them.
I've been through a lot of training both at UC and in industry and a bunch of what is said simply isn't true. WHen I challenged the instructors, it became pretty clear they were just reading a script without any understanding of the actual laws and rules behind what they were saying.
it is online training, and it does have lots of citations. I took it about 22 months ago.
"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also addressed pronoun use with respect to transgender individuals in the workplace. In 2013, the EEOC held in Jameson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130992, 2013 WL 2368729 (May 21, 2013) that repeated, intentional misuse of a transgender employee’s new name and gender pronoun may constitute sex-based discrimination or harassment. It noted that “supervisors and coworkers should use the name and pronoun of the gender that the employee identifies with in employee records and in communications with and about the employee.” In its decision, the EEOC cited guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, which encourages federal employers to use pronouns appropriate to an employee’s expressed gender identity." -- https://www.natlawreview.com/article/he-saidshe-said-pronoun...
"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also addressed pronoun use with respect to transgender individuals in the workplace. In 2013, the EEOC held in Jameson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130992, 2013 WL 2368729 (May 21, 2013) that repeated, intentional misuse of a transgender employee’s new name and gender pronoun may constitute sex-based discrimination or harassment. It noted that “supervisors and coworkers should use the name and pronoun of the gender that the employee identifies with in employee records and in communications with and about the employee.” In its decision, the EEOC cited guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, which encourages federal employers to use pronouns appropriate to an employee’s expressed gender identity." -- https://www.natlawreview.com/article/he-saidshe-said-pronoun...
that's definitely not enough to say that it's unlawful.
> and last time I had the mandatory every-other-year sexual harassment prevention training, it said it was un-lawful for me not to use a person's identified pronouns.
The trainer probably wasn't a lawyer and certainly wasn't your lawyer and definitely wasn't being paid to give you legal advice. What they were telling you was what they expected you to internalize so that your behavior would keep your employer well on the safe side of the law, which includes avoiding behaviors which are not individually unlawful per se but which could easily, in combination with other factors, be part of a pattern that might support a claim of a hostile work environment.
The trainer probably wasn't a lawyer and certainly wasn't your lawyer and definitely wasn't being paid to give you legal advice. What they were telling you was what they expected you to internalize so that your behavior would keep your employer well on the safe side of the law, which includes avoiding behaviors which are not individually unlawful per se but which could easily, in combination with other factors, be part of a pattern that might support a claim of a hostile work environment.
on-line training. I'm pretty sure these are vetted by OGC. They usually do a good job of explaining all the new legislation and case law that have come up in the last two years.
https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/prepar...
https://ogletree.com/insights/2016-03-21/the-new-california-...
https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/prepar...
https://ogletree.com/insights/2016-03-21/the-new-california-...
In some places, people have been charged with hate speech crimes for this very thing. I am extremely opposed to this kind of authoritarian censorship masquerading as human decency. Why? Because of things like this: https://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-hate-crimes-house-bill-...
People aren't seeing the forest for the trees, while one by one prerequisite precedents are being established for a new wave of authoritarian control. In any specific context, it seems laughable-- how could the RMS snafu and authoritarian power creep possibly be connected? But it's just one data point among many.
People aren't seeing the forest for the trees, while one by one prerequisite precedents are being established for a new wave of authoritarian control. In any specific context, it seems laughable-- how could the RMS snafu and authoritarian power creep possibly be connected? But it's just one data point among many.
I guess that it could be seen as employer discriminating on employee on basis of sex or something which could make the company liable, but on personal level First Amendment still applies and there is no way you could be prosecuted for that.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/may/fired-for-refusing-...
"""We were referred to a statement released by the school's attorney, which says: "Mr. Vlaming insisted on treating a transgender student differently than other students in the classroom, singling out the student on the basis of gender identity. In addition, Mr. Vlaming refused to comply with administrators' directives to follow division policies. During the public hearing before the school board, Mr. Vlaming again stated that he would not comply with these directives. Accordingly, the school board voted unanimously to terminate his employment. """
The fired individual does not have the monetary resources to fight this in the courts.
"""We were referred to a statement released by the school's attorney, which says: "Mr. Vlaming insisted on treating a transgender student differently than other students in the classroom, singling out the student on the basis of gender identity. In addition, Mr. Vlaming refused to comply with administrators' directives to follow division policies. During the public hearing before the school board, Mr. Vlaming again stated that he would not comply with these directives. Accordingly, the school board voted unanimously to terminate his employment. """
The fired individual does not have the monetary resources to fight this in the courts.
When I am performing my duties as a supervisor employed by the state, what do my personal first amendment rights have to do with anything?
> I'm sorry, but this isn't a prerequisite for working in the software industry. You are not allowed to vilify someone over having an opinion about gender, just like you shouldn't fire someone for having a different opinion on it than you.
Oh yes you are allowed to vilify someone for bullying LGBT folks. People who do this are literally attacking other people over who they are and what they cannot change. Just imagine it would be about the color of their skin. Gender identity or sexual/dating preferences are the same thing.
The IT industry must grow up and accept people who are not white, cis alpha males.
Oh yes you are allowed to vilify someone for bullying LGBT folks. People who do this are literally attacking other people over who they are and what they cannot change. Just imagine it would be about the color of their skin. Gender identity or sexual/dating preferences are the same thing.
The IT industry must grow up and accept people who are not white, cis alpha males.
Attacking someone and stating your own opinion about gender are two wildly different things. Do not falsely equate them in order to villify RMS. What you are doing is called a Motte and Bailey. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
Of course you're not supposed to bully anyone. That has nothing to do with this conversation.
Of course you're not supposed to bully anyone. That has nothing to do with this conversation.
If the IT industry only accepted alpha males it would be an industry empty of people.
Then you must agree that you are allowed to vilify someone for bullying autistic folks. After all people who do this are literally attacking other people over who they are and what they cannot change. Right?
The IT industry must grow up and accept people who are not neurotypical.
does white mean something besides color of skin?
>Stallman not only harassed women
No proof of that.
>and made them uncomfortable
Not a crime.
>he outright fired a transgender woman from the FSF for reporting her transphobic coworker
No proof of that, no proof of the coworker being transphobic, also all of that is not a crime.
>See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
That's the same person that accused Linus Torvalds of harassment and made him quit. Coincidence?
No proof of that.
>and made them uncomfortable
Not a crime.
>he outright fired a transgender woman from the FSF for reporting her transphobic coworker
No proof of that, no proof of the coworker being transphobic, also all of that is not a crime.
>See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
That's the same person that accused Linus Torvalds of harassment and made him quit. Coincidence?
>and made them uncomfortable
Not a crime.
I beg your pardon? Just because the police doesn't come after you (and depending how far he went, it might have been a literal crime), doesn't mean a behavior is acceptable.
Do you have an employed job? In most work places creating a "hostile work environment" is a very good reason (and rightfully so) to be fired.
Not a crime.
I beg your pardon? Just because the police doesn't come after you (and depending how far he went, it might have been a literal crime), doesn't mean a behavior is acceptable.
Do you have an employed job? In most work places creating a "hostile work environment" is a very good reason (and rightfully so) to be fired.
But there's also reasonable levels of discomfort and comfort, otherwise it turns into weaponized fragility.
Also, Jesus, they literally classified asking someone out on a date as sexual harassment.
Also, Jesus, they literally classified asking someone out on a date as sexual harassment.
In a workplace environment, it is quite possible that there could be implied ramifications to accepting or not accepting a request for a date. And if the person being asked of it sees the request for a date as having an unspoken "or else..." tacked onto the end of it... well, why shouldn't that be sexual harassment?
Yes there are reasonable levels of discomfort, but at a decent work place, those cannot be set to high before HR should take actions.
And by my understanding, he certainly was way more direct than asking someone out for a date. Have you seen the "pleasure cards"?
I can testify of him harassing people privately over public discussions on mailing lists.
And by my understanding, he certainly was way more direct than asking someone out for a date. Have you seen the "pleasure cards"?
I can testify of him harassing people privately over public discussions on mailing lists.
> Have you seen the "pleasure cards"?
Yes, having been asked "business or pleasure" countless times during his travel, his "pleasure card" is a nice pun on "business card". Of course, some might not like puns, so this reduces to "guy uses corny joke to introduce himself." I'm sure that never happened before.
https://fossforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RMSleisure....
> I can testify of him harassing people privately over public discussions on mailing lists.
Taking disagreements off-list is now harassment instead of good form?
Feel free to reproduce exactly these harassing private exchanges here. I'm fairly sure rms wouldn't mind, so there is nothing stopping you from providing actual evidence for this particular accusation.
Yes, having been asked "business or pleasure" countless times during his travel, his "pleasure card" is a nice pun on "business card". Of course, some might not like puns, so this reduces to "guy uses corny joke to introduce himself." I'm sure that never happened before.
https://fossforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RMSleisure....
> I can testify of him harassing people privately over public discussions on mailing lists.
Taking disagreements off-list is now harassment instead of good form?
Feel free to reproduce exactly these harassing private exchanges here. I'm fairly sure rms wouldn't mind, so there is nothing stopping you from providing actual evidence for this particular accusation.
>Yes, having been asked "business or pleasure" countless times during his travel, his "pleasure card" is a nice pun on "business card".
That's the nerdiest joke that I ever heard.
BTW this is the first time I heard the pleasure card explanation. Poor choice for a joke.
That's the nerdiest joke that I ever heard.
BTW this is the first time I heard the pleasure card explanation. Poor choice for a joke.
Taking disagreements off-list is now harassment instead of good form?
It wasn't disagreement, but aggressive harassment including legal threads.
It wasn't disagreement, but aggressive harassment including legal threads.
you sound hostile and are making me uncomfortable
[deleted]
> disempowers and dehumanizes marginalized people
That sounds terribly exaggerated. If this is the way to describe Stallman, what adjectives could be reserved to the much worse people out there?
You may not care about a random dude in the internet giving you an advice, but consider both sides of the coin and don't fall so quickly into manichaeism.
That sounds terribly exaggerated. If this is the way to describe Stallman, what adjectives could be reserved to the much worse people out there?
You may not care about a random dude in the internet giving you an advice, but consider both sides of the coin and don't fall so quickly into manichaeism.
Just a few thoughts from and old guy who's baffled by some things in modern times...
I struggle with names at times...
And now pronouns? Uhhhh, I bet I screw it up more than 50% of the time. The differences in people (don't say god bless you you to some indians or muslims when they sneeze, for example) are more than I can keep track of at times. Does that make me a creep?
There was one guy his chose "The Great and Powerful <something>" for his pronoun. Yeah, I'll remember that...
At what point do you become a creep for not remembering? At what point do you become a target for the SJW hit squad?
I struggle with names at times...
And now pronouns? Uhhhh, I bet I screw it up more than 50% of the time. The differences in people (don't say god bless you you to some indians or muslims when they sneeze, for example) are more than I can keep track of at times. Does that make me a creep?
There was one guy his chose "The Great and Powerful <something>" for his pronoun. Yeah, I'll remember that...
At what point do you become a creep for not remembering? At what point do you become a target for the SJW hit squad?
I've had "SJW" thrown at me a few good times. I wouldn't ever call someone a creep for not remembering. However if you interact with someone who identifies as non-binary and they tell you they would like to be addressed as "they" and you make a point to use the biologically closest pronoun while you also make sure to let them know that you believe there's only two distinct sexes/genders. I would call you/think of you as a disrespectful human being. Nothing more nothing less.
But I you really try to remember, but can't overcome your programming (I do that often with my non-binary acquaintances, it's hard as fuck, but I guess I'm getting old as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) then you are a human being that tries to be respectful. And that's a good thing! So take a look in the mirror and try to see which one you are and ignore those disrespectful human beings that would call you a creep for not remembering.
But I you really try to remember, but can't overcome your programming (I do that often with my non-binary acquaintances, it's hard as fuck, but I guess I'm getting old as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) then you are a human being that tries to be respectful. And that's a good thing! So take a look in the mirror and try to see which one you are and ignore those disrespectful human beings that would call you a creep for not remembering.
That's not respect, that's an overarching extension of individualism and an extension of the notion of "respecting my freedom" to "not doing anything that bothers me". This is a very dangerous and toxic ideology, so I'll very carefully avoid complying to it, thank you very much.
BTW as I have long blond hair I'm called madam quite often and learned not to be bothered by it though I'm a cis hetero white male. Furthermore it comes often from children, who speak the truth as everyone knows. So grow a spine and fight, don't nag everyone else to be nice. People aren't nice. The world isn't any more just than we make it. And lynching (even symbolically) isn't the way to get a just world. Victims aren't noble. Fighters are. See Malcolm X. MLK. Rosa Luxemburg. Daniel Guérin.
BTW as I have long blond hair I'm called madam quite often and learned not to be bothered by it though I'm a cis hetero white male. Furthermore it comes often from children, who speak the truth as everyone knows. So grow a spine and fight, don't nag everyone else to be nice. People aren't nice. The world isn't any more just than we make it. And lynching (even symbolically) isn't the way to get a just world. Victims aren't noble. Fighters are. See Malcolm X. MLK. Rosa Luxemburg. Daniel Guérin.
> learned not to be bothered by it
Have you ever been forced to use a women's bathroom because of your, probably fabulous, hair?
Have you ever been forced to use a women's bathroom because of your, probably fabulous, hair?
I wouldn't anyway because I know precisely why there are separate bathrooms for men and women: because men usually pee on the seat. In the case I would have to pee in women's toilet, I would sit down (because what you actually do is eventually respect, not your herd signalling, or empty words).
On the other hand, how many different toilets should there be in your world? Should non transgender women be allowed in women's toilets? That has been an actual question and an actual problem to solve in the world of infinitely exploded communities of precious snowflakes (in the very same order of absurdity, should veiled white women allowed in "coloured women only" meetings? what about transgender black women?).
As food for thought, if you believe that, as a white cis male, I'm a born oppressor, I've also been actually harassed, publicly humiliated, attacked and beaten for being "a fag" (you know, long blond hair), because homophobes don't really care about who you actually are, and also beaten for defending women harassed on the street (because machos/sexists are also generally violent).
In the global competition for victimhood, nobody can win. Who knows what humiliations RMS was subjected to for being ugly, fat, an asocial geek, etc. Maybe he used the power he has in some sets and circumstances in despicable ways. But so do the students at Evergreen, because that's just what human beings do. Being an aggressor or a victim is mostly circumstantial for most people.
On the other hand, how many different toilets should there be in your world? Should non transgender women be allowed in women's toilets? That has been an actual question and an actual problem to solve in the world of infinitely exploded communities of precious snowflakes (in the very same order of absurdity, should veiled white women allowed in "coloured women only" meetings? what about transgender black women?).
As food for thought, if you believe that, as a white cis male, I'm a born oppressor, I've also been actually harassed, publicly humiliated, attacked and beaten for being "a fag" (you know, long blond hair), because homophobes don't really care about who you actually are, and also beaten for defending women harassed on the street (because machos/sexists are also generally violent).
In the global competition for victimhood, nobody can win. Who knows what humiliations RMS was subjected to for being ugly, fat, an asocial geek, etc. Maybe he used the power he has in some sets and circumstances in despicable ways. But so do the students at Evergreen, because that's just what human beings do. Being an aggressor or a victim is mostly circumstantial for most people.
> I've also been actually harassed, publicly humiliated, attacked and beaten for being "a fag"
Do you think that the person who looked at you and proceeded to call you a fag showed you respect?
Do you think that the person who looked at you and proceeded to call you a fag showed you respect?
Certainly not, but if had it been only this, I would hardly remember it, you know. Being insulted isn't the same thing as being harassed which is different from being beaten and is different from being raped, then all of this is also different when it's one-on-one and when it's done publicly: being insulted, spit on and beaten to the ground in front of many people isn't the same, either. Circumstances, again.
Yes of course context and circumstance matters but my point is that this "respect" thing that we are talking about requires a bit of empathy. And now that we have established that you have been clearly disrespected maybe you can go to your feelings that came when that happened, anger, fear, sadness I don't know and then imagine that the person you refer to by a pronoun that they don't relate to feel those feelings, even though you think that they shouldn't feel that way. Wouldn't it be respectful of you honor their wishes despite your opinion that this is a "very dangerous and toxic ideology" and an "overarching extension of individualism" (did you mean overreaching though?). Or do you just say "Fuck their feelings, I've been through worse, they should be glad it's 'only this'"?
Intentions matter. When someone calls me "madam", I know this bears generally no bad intent. Therefore I don't make any fuss about it.
I've worked for a doctor doing sex change treatments, a long time ago. I've seen people that suffered incredibly. Some of them looked like caricatures, but that was certainly not funny. I took, naturally, great care in calling them "sir" or "madam" as they expected (and it sometimes required actual effort, and it was poignant and upsetting just thinking of the looks these persons must have received back outdoors).
However I don't feel like wanting to be called some very special pronoun that nobody ever heard of because you're oh so special falls into the same category. I don't feel that people wanting to be in their own very special niche class of genre, race or whatever category is sane, good and healthy, or some form of progress. Happiness isn't finding some form of very individualistic achievement.
I've worked for a doctor doing sex change treatments, a long time ago. I've seen people that suffered incredibly. Some of them looked like caricatures, but that was certainly not funny. I took, naturally, great care in calling them "sir" or "madam" as they expected (and it sometimes required actual effort, and it was poignant and upsetting just thinking of the looks these persons must have received back outdoors).
However I don't feel like wanting to be called some very special pronoun that nobody ever heard of because you're oh so special falls into the same category. I don't feel that people wanting to be in their own very special niche class of genre, race or whatever category is sane, good and healthy, or some form of progress. Happiness isn't finding some form of very individualistic achievement.
> I don't feel that people wanting to be in their own very special niche class of genre, race or whatever category is sane, good and healthy, or some form of progress. Happiness isn't finding some form of very individualistic achievement.
1) That's not a feeling, that's an opinion. 2) And really? Do you think you have the answer to how people should find "happiness". Then you should write one more book on the subject and become another self help millionaire. You seem appropriately sure of yourself so, go nuts!
1) That's not a feeling, that's an opinion. 2) And really? Do you think you have the answer to how people should find "happiness". Then you should write one more book on the subject and become another self help millionaire. You seem appropriately sure of yourself so, go nuts!
Side note: this is how you look in my mind.
https://dethklok.fandom.com/wiki/Skwisgaar_Skwigelf
Close enough.
Stallman has a post about how he refuses to use the word they because it's not traditionally correct English and has choses to invent his own word "per" to refer to someone without specifying gender.
This seems acceptable to me. Stallman has always been weird with word choice but I see no bad intent here.
This seems acceptable to me. Stallman has always been weird with word choice but I see no bad intent here.
> This seems acceptable to me
And to other's that seems like he doesn't respect the wishes of others and instead behaves in a way that is logically sound in his own mind. That's not a crime. Just a disrespectful way of behaving that generates antagonists instead of friends.
Side note: "per" is very funny to me as a swede since it's a super common traditionally(exclusively?) male name.
And to other's that seems like he doesn't respect the wishes of others and instead behaves in a way that is logically sound in his own mind. That's not a crime. Just a disrespectful way of behaving that generates antagonists instead of friends.
Side note: "per" is very funny to me as a swede since it's a super common traditionally(exclusively?) male name.
> respect the wishes of others
Please define "others". It should be a definition that is not only "transgender people". Could it be "all the people in the world that is not you"?
If so, it is impossible to please them all. Some will contradict each other. It will generate antagonists or you will be seen as rude whenever you want it or not.
So you may decide you will be siding and pleasing those "others" who are "right" (based on your personal preference only). But at the same time, not everyone who is "not right" is necessarily "wrong".
I'm not siding with anyone, and I won't tell if I use or not special pronouns. But today the discussion is about pronouns. Tomorrow, who knows? Up to where are you willing to bend?
Please define "others". It should be a definition that is not only "transgender people". Could it be "all the people in the world that is not you"?
If so, it is impossible to please them all. Some will contradict each other. It will generate antagonists or you will be seen as rude whenever you want it or not.
So you may decide you will be siding and pleasing those "others" who are "right" (based on your personal preference only). But at the same time, not everyone who is "not right" is necessarily "wrong".
I'm not siding with anyone, and I won't tell if I use or not special pronouns. But today the discussion is about pronouns. Tomorrow, who knows? Up to where are you willing to bend?
And my wish is that you empty your wallet and gimme all your money. See? Now you're not respeting my wishes. Not a crime, but you're disrespecting me and antagonizing me!
Didn't Swedish add a new pronoun for gender neutral? I.e. exactly what RMS does?
No, not really. We added "hen" who is short for "han/hon" ("he/she"). Some people want "hen" as pronoun as well which I think is awkward. I've only met nb people here who wants to be called "den", I guess from english "they". That is really hard for my programming since "den" is commonly used to refer to inanimate objects. It seem so inhuman to me that I have a really hard time respecting that. I try though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
He and she (and apparently now they) are subject pronouns as are han/hon... What is hen if not a subject pronoun?
IANAL (linguist) so I'm sure you're right. My point is that hen wasn't promoted to use to refer to actual people but to eliminate the annoying "he/she". A construction which often was forgotten when referring to a profession which has a stereotypical gender. Ex: Doctors become "he" and nurses become "she". That was the problem "hen" tried to solve.
> That's not a crime. Just a disrespectful way of behaving that generates antagonists instead of friends.
That goes both ways though.
That goes both ways though.
A person with lots of integrity wont change what they say easily. If they don't believe that there are more than two genders, then for them to use a third pronoun with a straight face they would have to rebuild their entire worldview around gender. Of course that would be a good thing, but doing that would take a lot of work and not something you can get them to do in the few seconds it takes for a conversation to get awkward.
I'd be more wary of the people with low integrity who just say what others want to hear, they change their speech but doesn't actually change their behavior and will still discriminate and undermine groups even when forced to change their speech pattern.
Stallman seems to me like a person with an extremely high level of integrity, if a normal person believe that voluntary pedophilia is fine they would just shut up and join the mob but not Stallman. He faced his world view head on and no longer believe that pedophilia is fine, and we can be pretty sure that he actually changed since he doesn't buckle to pressure. The same can not be said about most politicians and other conventional leaders.
I'd be more wary of the people with low integrity who just say what others want to hear, they change their speech but doesn't actually change their behavior and will still discriminate and undermine groups even when forced to change their speech pattern.
Stallman seems to me like a person with an extremely high level of integrity, if a normal person believe that voluntary pedophilia is fine they would just shut up and join the mob but not Stallman. He faced his world view head on and no longer believe that pedophilia is fine, and we can be pretty sure that he actually changed since he doesn't buckle to pressure. The same can not be said about most politicians and other conventional leaders.
> they would have to rebuild their entire worldview around gender
I don't really understand this. When I'm talking to an adopted child, I have no trouble calling their parents their parents, even though they're objectively guardians. When I'm dining with religious folks, I have no trouble saying "Amen" or some such phrase from their religion despite me being an atheist.
Saying something you don't objectively believe out of consideration for others' feelings is normal, and it's fairly basic manners.
I don't really understand this. When I'm talking to an adopted child, I have no trouble calling their parents their parents, even though they're objectively guardians. When I'm dining with religious folks, I have no trouble saying "Amen" or some such phrase from their religion despite me being an atheist.
Saying something you don't objectively believe out of consideration for others' feelings is normal, and it's fairly basic manners.
> I'd be more wary of the people with low integrity who just say what others want to hear, they change their speech but doesn't actually change their behavior and will still discriminate and undermine groups even when forced to change their speech pattern.
Yep, they're the worst in my book as well.
Yep, they're the worst in my book as well.
I think that respect is something earned and is not to be extended to everyone without distinction. If you think everyone should be called by their preferred pronouns, that's not respect.
> If you think everyone should be called by their preferred pronouns, that's not respect
How is that not respecting others?
How is that not respecting others?
Will you respect my pronouns if say my pronouns are God/God/Gods? Some people might tolerate it, but for most I doubt.
zie,sie,ey,ve,tey,e,xe,ze,ne,shi, furries and similar try to use fae, plant, bun, star, void. And that's just few examples. Most people will reasonably draw a line somewhere. Some people just decide to draw line behind he/she and maybe also consider if the person appears vaguely male/female.
One could also make claim that choosing some ridiculous new pronoun is disrespectful of others. People were content with he/she for thousands of years and some could consider inventing new ones similar to 1984's Newspeak.
One could also make claim that choosing some ridiculous new pronoun is disrespectful of others. People were content with he/she for thousands of years and some could consider inventing new ones similar to 1984's Newspeak.
> One could also make claim that choosing some ridiculous new pronoun is disrespectful of others.
Of course, but that hypothetical person who put forward this claim doesn't subscribe to the generally accepted definition of respect so I don't see why we should discuss that person.
Of course, but that hypothetical person who put forward this claim doesn't subscribe to the generally accepted definition of respect so I don't see why we should discuss that person.
Is there an approved list of pronouns it is OK to choose from?
I don't understand where this question comes from?
Since you said a hypothetical person who wants to be called by a ridiculous pronoun doesn't share your definition of respect, I'm wondering if you have an opinion on which desired pronouns are repectable and which aren't.
i find getting called 'cis' quite disrespectful. offensive even. doubly so when light skin color, 'white', is used to generalize and demonize. hypocrisy is the worst.
> Since you said a hypothetical person who wants to be called by a ridiculous pronoun
Ok. Now I understand. Read my comment again. We're talking about hypotetical person A who claims that another hypothetical B person who wants to be called by a ridiculous pronoun is disrespectful.
A says that B is disrespectful.
I said that it is A who doesn't know what respect is.
Sorry that you got confused.
Ok. Now I understand. Read my comment again. We're talking about hypotetical person A who claims that another hypothetical B person who wants to be called by a ridiculous pronoun is disrespectful.
A says that B is disrespectful.
I said that it is A who doesn't know what respect is.
Sorry that you got confused.
I think that's politeness. I respect people for some achievement, skill, or contribution, for example. Respect is what we extend to some, and politeness is what we extend to everyone. It might sound like an asinine distinction, but the choice of words really does matter in a discussion such as this where the whole point is what words we ought to use to refer to trans people.
From Wikipedia.
> Respect, also is called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities. And it is also the process of honoring someone by exhibiting care, concern, or consideration for their needs or feelings.
My emphasis. I don't know if you define "respect" in your own way or you only care about people's feeling if they have a certain skill level or have achieved/contributed enough.
> Respect, also is called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities. And it is also the process of honoring someone by exhibiting care, concern, or consideration for their needs or feelings.
My emphasis. I don't know if you define "respect" in your own way or you only care about people's feeling if they have a certain skill level or have achieved/contributed enough.
Honor, too, is something not extended equally.
i wouldn't think you are being disrespectful for disagreeing that there are only two sexes. even if you were, then big whoop. you don't have to respect me. sometimes it seems like it's an endless boo-hoo until we're all winston smiths, scared to even think (and the thought of that really offends me).
WRT the "don't say god bless you" thing, I'm not really sure how that fits into what I'm saying, and that feels kind of like a straw man -- likewise with the "one guy" and their pronoun -- most queer and trans folks don't have pronouns like that. They are usually either people who were gendered as men or women most of their lives, who decided that they want to go by "she" or "he" respectively later in life, or people who aren't comfortable with either, and prefer "they".
I haven't met someone yet who has preferences outside of that. But you know what? If I met one, it would cost me virtually nothing to respect their preferences and make them feel seen.
And to be clear -- it's absolutely fine (usually) to make mistakes, so long as you're making an effort to be respectful. It's not ideal to not remember someone's pronouns (and again, 99% of the time when it's different than what you'd expect, it's either "he", "she", or "they"), but it's also usually not the end of the world -- most people I know, myself included, are fine if you say "oops! my bad".
Intentions go a long way.
I haven't met someone yet who has preferences outside of that. But you know what? If I met one, it would cost me virtually nothing to respect their preferences and make them feel seen.
And to be clear -- it's absolutely fine (usually) to make mistakes, so long as you're making an effort to be respectful. It's not ideal to not remember someone's pronouns (and again, 99% of the time when it's different than what you'd expect, it's either "he", "she", or "they"), but it's also usually not the end of the world -- most people I know, myself included, are fine if you say "oops! my bad".
Intentions go a long way.
When is it not fine to make mistakes? You say that intentions go a long way (towards something), which makes it sound like it all depends on how this mistake is received by the transgender person. If there is no objective rule on how to acceptably address trans people, why should we enforce an imaginary rule?
>> WRT the "don't say god bless you" thing, I'm not really sure how that fits into what I'm saying, and that feels kind of like a straw man -- likewise with the "one guy" and their pronoun -- most queer and trans folks don't have pronouns like that. They are usually either people who were gendered as men or women most of their lives, who decided that they want to go by "she" or "he" respectively later in life, or people who aren't comfortable with either, and prefer "they".
I thought I covered that in 2 ways...
1) Random thoughts from an old guy
2) I was giving an example of the differences between people.
I have been chastised in the past for saying bless you to some people. I've kind of trained myself now to say "Maay the diety of your choice bless you" in some cirumstances but I also get chastised for that. I've also been chastised for remaining silent. So, what choice do I make here to not be "creepy".
For whatever it's worth.
I thought I covered that in 2 ways...
1) Random thoughts from an old guy
2) I was giving an example of the differences between people.
I have been chastised in the past for saying bless you to some people. I've kind of trained myself now to say "Maay the diety of your choice bless you" in some cirumstances but I also get chastised for that. I've also been chastised for remaining silent. So, what choice do I make here to not be "creepy".
For whatever it's worth.
>I've kind of trained myself now to say "Maay the diety of your choice bless you" in some cirumstances but I also get chastised for that.
I always say "gesundheit", which is normal in German (it translates to "health"). As a non-religious person, I don't understand why religious people always want to push religion on everyone around them.
The other thing you can do is just not say anything at all when someone sneezes. Asian cultures don't have this practice at all.
I always say "gesundheit", which is normal in German (it translates to "health"). As a non-religious person, I don't understand why religious people always want to push religion on everyone around them.
The other thing you can do is just not say anything at all when someone sneezes. Asian cultures don't have this practice at all.
It's not really pushing religion as it is an act of kindness. I don't really understand why someone would find it offensive for wishing them better health as it's the intention that counts rather than what faith you hold.
I'm not religious at all and I still say "bless you" since it's from the culture I grew up with of wishing others well. If anyone finds that offensive then they certainly have more issues than I do.
I'm not religious at all and I still say "bless you" since it's from the culture I grew up with of wishing others well. If anyone finds that offensive then they certainly have more issues than I do.
>I don't really understand why someone would find it offensive for wishing them better health
You're not just wishing them better health; you're wishing that your preferred deity magically give them better health. So you're pushing your faith in that deity on that person.
>I'm not religious at all and I still say "bless you" since it's from the culture I grew up
The culture I grew up in (America, specifically the South) does the same thing. It also has other great things in its "culture", like murdering black people with nooses during the Jim Crow days, and generally being intolerant of people who are different. "The culture I grew up in" is not a good excuse for bad behavior, and that includes pushing religion on people.
You're not just wishing them better health; you're wishing that your preferred deity magically give them better health. So you're pushing your faith in that deity on that person.
>I'm not religious at all and I still say "bless you" since it's from the culture I grew up
The culture I grew up in (America, specifically the South) does the same thing. It also has other great things in its "culture", like murdering black people with nooses during the Jim Crow days, and generally being intolerant of people who are different. "The culture I grew up in" is not a good excuse for bad behavior, and that includes pushing religion on people.
It's hardly bad behaviour to wish someone well and it's never been. One shouldn't have to add "and if you do not follow the same then interpret your deity (if any)" to a conversation as the recipent may interpret under their prefered deity as they wish. It's rather sad that even an act of kindness is now seen as bad behaviour simply from refusal to accept that we have different ways of showing it.
As for culture, sure, every single one is at some point guilty of crimes against humanity such as in my country [1], [2], etc and we must be able to look past those things as otherwise it's impossible to change for the better.
We will be different, have different beliefs, different sexuality, different colours of skin, and different languages to convey our thoughts. If we continue to see even an act of kindness as hostile then I don't have much hope people will ever get over differences. It shouldn't be different if they're Christian, Sunni, or any else and extend their greeting in their way to you along with their own way of wishing you well. What matters most is the intention rather than if they're from the same faith as you.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sw... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer_crisis
As for culture, sure, every single one is at some point guilty of crimes against humanity such as in my country [1], [2], etc and we must be able to look past those things as otherwise it's impossible to change for the better.
We will be different, have different beliefs, different sexuality, different colours of skin, and different languages to convey our thoughts. If we continue to see even an act of kindness as hostile then I don't have much hope people will ever get over differences. It shouldn't be different if they're Christian, Sunni, or any else and extend their greeting in their way to you along with their own way of wishing you well. What matters most is the intention rather than if they're from the same faith as you.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sw... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer_crisis
>the recipent may interpret under their prefered deity as they wish
This may come as a shock to you, but there's a lot of people in the world who don't have any "preferred deity", and really don't appreciate religious people trying to push their myths on them.
>It's rather sad that even an act of kindness is now seen as bad behaviour simply from refusal to accept that we have different ways of showing it.
This reminds me of Christians who want to give food to starving people, but only if they sit and listen to some stupid sermon trying to get them to convert.
If you want to be kind, then don't tie your "act of kindness" to your belief system in an attempt to convert others to it.
This is generally an American problem too. Other cultures, even when they do have a religion, don't really care about pushing it on others. Even in Europe, most modern-day Christians there seem to keep their religion very private (hence why Germans say "gesundheit" when someone sneezes, even though Germany is traditionally a Christian country).
This may come as a shock to you, but there's a lot of people in the world who don't have any "preferred deity", and really don't appreciate religious people trying to push their myths on them.
>It's rather sad that even an act of kindness is now seen as bad behaviour simply from refusal to accept that we have different ways of showing it.
This reminds me of Christians who want to give food to starving people, but only if they sit and listen to some stupid sermon trying to get them to convert.
If you want to be kind, then don't tie your "act of kindness" to your belief system in an attempt to convert others to it.
This is generally an American problem too. Other cultures, even when they do have a religion, don't really care about pushing it on others. Even in Europe, most modern-day Christians there seem to keep their religion very private (hence why Germans say "gesundheit" when someone sneezes, even though Germany is traditionally a Christian country).
'none' is in the set of prefered presented in the text you quoted and in the example disclaimer.
Well I live in Europe as I'm Swedish; in the UK it's common to say "bless you" while in Sweden we usually say "prosit" (the two I've spent a significant portion of my life in). The former would even be from those not following Christian traditions but rather as stated before. This seems to reflect the trend in quite a few others in Europe such as Spain, Ireland, Wales (UK), etc.
Again, most of it isn't an attempt at "converting" or even some other hidden motive. It may be different in other parts of the world but from the places I've lived in Europe it's been as I've stated.
Well I live in Europe as I'm Swedish; in the UK it's common to say "bless you" while in Sweden we usually say "prosit" (the two I've spent a significant portion of my life in). The former would even be from those not following Christian traditions but rather as stated before. This seems to reflect the trend in quite a few others in Europe such as Spain, Ireland, Wales (UK), etc.
Again, most of it isn't an attempt at "converting" or even some other hidden motive. It may be different in other parts of the world but from the places I've lived in Europe it's been as I've stated.
Apparently the neovictorian age has come and just like in the original version, etiquette rules are escalating into a fierce arms race.
[deleted]
> he outright fired a transgender woman from the FSF for reporting her transphobic coworker who kept harassing her
Would you mind providing a citation for this? I am legitimately curious, Leah for example retracted their comments on the issue.
> Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
Please elaborate. This is the first time that I hear of such an accusation.
> See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
I don't see anything wrong there. What is wrong with believing that victimless crimes should be legal? Also, asking someone on a date is harassment now? What?
Would you mind providing a citation for this? I am legitimately curious, Leah for example retracted their comments on the issue.
> Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
Please elaborate. This is the first time that I hear of such an accusation.
> See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
I don't see anything wrong there. What is wrong with believing that victimless crimes should be legal? Also, asking someone on a date is harassment now? What?
As far as I know, Stallman respects "he", "she", and a genderless pronoun he made up. He refuses to respect singular "they".[1]
[1] https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
[1] https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
> he made up
He says that he took it from "Marge Piercy's book Woman on the Edge of Time"
> He refuses to respect singular "they".
He says "As for \"they\", if you are plural by nature — for instance, if you are a colonial organism or a group mind, or if you wish to be known for having multiple personalities — I will use that plural pronoun to refer to you.", which seems fair to me.
He says that he took it from "Marge Piercy's book Woman on the Edge of Time"
> He refuses to respect singular "they".
He says "As for \"they\", if you are plural by nature — for instance, if you are a colonial organism or a group mind, or if you wish to be known for having multiple personalities — I will use that plural pronoun to refer to you.", which seems fair to me.
He made up "perse".
Singular "they" is common English. Not respecting it seems unfair to me.
Singular "they" is common English. Not respecting it seems unfair to me.
You're talking about the guy who, in the email thread that "ended" him, complained that he can't read a link because the site doesn't work with OSS technologies.
He's extreme in following his dogma. If he believes "they" is plural in nature, he will refuse to use that as a singular - and that is not because he disrespects you, but because he thinks "this is the right thing to do".
If you believe it's fair to have a particular personality that requires other persons to call you "they".... doesn't it follow that it's fair to have a particular personality that makes you feel very bad about "misusing English"? It's really two sides of the same coin, if you believe a person has the right to decide what pronouns he's comfortable being called, you must also believe a person has the right to decide how he uses a particular pronoun. The essential thing here is that RMS doesn't avoid "they" out of disrespect, but out of his own particular weirdness/ peculiarity... something that we should be able to respect.
He's extreme in following his dogma. If he believes "they" is plural in nature, he will refuse to use that as a singular - and that is not because he disrespects you, but because he thinks "this is the right thing to do".
If you believe it's fair to have a particular personality that requires other persons to call you "they".... doesn't it follow that it's fair to have a particular personality that makes you feel very bad about "misusing English"? It's really two sides of the same coin, if you believe a person has the right to decide what pronouns he's comfortable being called, you must also believe a person has the right to decide how he uses a particular pronoun. The essential thing here is that RMS doesn't avoid "they" out of disrespect, but out of his own particular weirdness/ peculiarity... something that we should be able to respect.
Unfair to whom? And why do you think that it is unfair? Is it just because it is popular?
It's not behavior that should be exhibited by a leader/evangelist for a cause.
I think that you posted this to the wrong post by mistake.
[deleted]
Then said woman apologies and blamed drugs and a 'tough personal time' for lashing out at free software:
https://libreboot.org/news/unity.html
https://libreboot.org/news/unity.html
and, look at LibrePlanet mailing list archives and you'll see the same person is now a staunch defender of RMS and highly critical of people criticizing him now.
[deleted]
Good for him. In this day and age I support any fightback against deplatforming. I hate that it has come down to this, where you have to take a stand just on principles. I don't know if Stallman is really a "creepy old man" who hits on his female co-workers but any chance of a fair enquiry in an appropriate manner is near zero.
The mass hysteria and instant justice demands of the twitter outrage mob has killed nuance or shades of grey from public discourse. I really really hate that anything in the center is taboo. I lay the blame squarely on the far-left for this state of affairs. They started this war and this trend. God knows where it will end.
The mass hysteria and instant justice demands of the twitter outrage mob has killed nuance or shades of grey from public discourse. I really really hate that anything in the center is taboo. I lay the blame squarely on the far-left for this state of affairs. They started this war and this trend. God knows where it will end.
The thing you're describing where people latch on to outrage in the social media age isn't an effect exclusive to the left. I think that human tribalism and group think in a huge instant forum like the modern internet inevitably lead to some bad conclusions and disproportionate outcomes. I think we have to find a way to give deeply considered and measured commentary the share of our collective attention it deserves. Upvotes and downvotes and likes and shares don't serve that purpose well enough.
I agree with you for the most part, but I disagree about the characterization of the phenomenon as "far-left." It's driven by middle-class conformists, in my humble opinion.
Now that's an interesting idea.
I'm very political and some of my peeps (on the left) exhaust me. I disregard anyone telling someone else how they should be living; remove the log from your own eye first and so forth. Left, right, up, down -- they're all the same. I call them scolds.
I'll now have to consider your thesis (about scolds being a flavor of conformists).
I'm very political and some of my peeps (on the left) exhaust me. I disregard anyone telling someone else how they should be living; remove the log from your own eye first and so forth. Left, right, up, down -- they're all the same. I call them scolds.
I'll now have to consider your thesis (about scolds being a flavor of conformists).
ya because the upper middle class and the wealthy are such a heterogeneous bunch with respect to what they're intolerant of (or really along any dimension)
Good for him. In this day and age I support any fightback against deplatforming.
Maybe it's just me but these news surprise me most because, of all people, Stallman is a pioneer of some kinds of activism that these people also practices, like nitpicking about language or the idea of purity.
Maybe it's just me but these news surprise me most because, of all people, Stallman is a pioneer of some kinds of activism that these people also practices, like nitpicking about language or the idea of purity.
It is a big difference between just making moral claims (even about language and purity), expressing them and conforming to them perself on one side, and calling for outrage mob and deplatforming on the other side.
The first one is responsible moral position, the second one is witch hunt.
The first one is responsible moral position, the second one is witch hunt.
[deleted]
[deleted]
No one has ever accused him of hitting on his female coworkers. His assistant for the last 15 years is a woman. In most of his activities, hes a volunteer activist. Some of his critics are past female coworkers, but they would gladly say he has never done that. So, you actually can know that.
Your own words lack the nuance and shades of gray whose absence you so lament; methinks the lady doth protest too much.
If I can be forgiven for an interesting meta observation, I think the time of day and the tone of some comments makes a big difference depending on the topic.
For example Snowdon topics posted during the European morning and then later on American users share their thoughts and comments. And then later on as Silicon Valley comes online.
same with RMS and other cultural issues, when just looking at the comments it's clear that there's differences in opinion due to different cultures.
I have not really observed these differences in pure tech stories though.
For example Snowdon topics posted during the European morning and then later on American users share their thoughts and comments. And then later on as Silicon Valley comes online.
same with RMS and other cultural issues, when just looking at the comments it's clear that there's differences in opinion due to different cultures.
I have not really observed these differences in pure tech stories though.
What are these cultural differences in the Stallman issue? European users are more supportive of him I guess, right?
He would do well to acknowledge the controversy surrounding his recent exits--the people saying his resignations were a leap forward for tech. To ignore them lends them credence.
He did post an apology on his personal website but it wasn't particularly strong I guess
It wasn't an apology, but regret.
The one thing I hope for in this whole situation is that the F/OSS movement keeps going, and the quality of code and diversity of free software stays high, because I'm pretty sure there are individuals and companies who want F/OSS to end, and may see this as an opportunity to try to stoke further controversy and infighting to splinter and destroy the movement.
I think everyone should be able to agree that the situation, as it stands, is pretty unfortunate. Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of many members of the community, and it seems unlikely that he will be an effective leader and public face for GNU, as a result.
I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to prevent him from airing his personal opinions (contra what many people are claiming in this thread), and there are indeed many people who are open to listening to those opinions -- but whether you think he ought to leave GNU or not, it's unfortunate that he triggers such strong negative reactions from many people. Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep". [1]
While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions, as two organizations have done, was the right decision[3], I also believe that that's not really relevant for this particular thread. He founded GNU. He runs GNU. He probably can't be forced by anyone to leave GNU. None of that changes the fact that he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
[1] https://twitter.com/evacide/status/1172287971220848640
[2] He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
[3] Even putting aside the forum in which he made these comments, and the things he has said and done at other times.
I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to prevent him from airing his personal opinions (contra what many people are claiming in this thread), and there are indeed many people who are open to listening to those opinions -- but whether you think he ought to leave GNU or not, it's unfortunate that he triggers such strong negative reactions from many people. Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep". [1]
While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions, as two organizations have done, was the right decision[3], I also believe that that's not really relevant for this particular thread. He founded GNU. He runs GNU. He probably can't be forced by anyone to leave GNU. None of that changes the fact that he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
[1] https://twitter.com/evacide/status/1172287971220848640
[2] He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
[3] Even putting aside the forum in which he made these comments, and the things he has said and done at other times.
>Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of many members of the community,
He lost or never had the trust of some very small but very vocal group of the community.
> EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep".
And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? Also, an accusation of "creep" should not be enough to erase all his life's work. What does "creep" means anyway? Asperger? Social inept person? Modern tech were built by creeps.
>He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
He didn't said that.
>he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
Why not? Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists. I don't see why a "creep" will not be effective as a leader.
He lost or never had the trust of some very small but very vocal group of the community.
> EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep".
And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? Also, an accusation of "creep" should not be enough to erase all his life's work. What does "creep" means anyway? Asperger? Social inept person? Modern tech were built by creeps.
>He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
He didn't said that.
>he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
Why not? Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists. I don't see why a "creep" will not be effective as a leader.
> Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists
Maybe it’s time to change things up a bit?
Maybe it’s time to change things up a bit?
If the activists want to start writing software nobody is stopping them. If there are so many of these disenfranchised people just clamoring to write software why don't they just get together and do it? They don't need anyone elses permission to write code or publish it.
> And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why?
I didn't say we should. Though I trust her judgment more than, say, yours (an anonymous person on the Internet). I used it as evidence that Stallman doesn't have the trust of the community. Also "creep" is almost certainly talking about the way he reportedly treats women, nothing to do with his social graces.
> He didn't said that.
He did say that. I've posted links with evidence of that already in this thread.
I didn't say we should. Though I trust her judgment more than, say, yours (an anonymous person on the Internet). I used it as evidence that Stallman doesn't have the trust of the community. Also "creep" is almost certainly talking about the way he reportedly treats women, nothing to do with his social graces.
> He didn't said that.
He did say that. I've posted links with evidence of that already in this thread.
> I trust her judgment more than, say, yours
Good for you, I don't. I trust Stallman.
> I used it as evidence
You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence.
>the way he reportedly treats women
Reported by who? Is there any formal accusation or lawsuit? Did he lost such lawsuit? (because anybody can file a lawsuit).
Good for you, I don't. I trust Stallman.
> I used it as evidence
You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence.
>the way he reportedly treats women
Reported by who? Is there any formal accusation or lawsuit? Did he lost such lawsuit? (because anybody can file a lawsuit).
So because the woman is unknown she is untrustworthy?
Lawsuits aren't free. And the result is usually to destroy the woman's career and reputation.
Especially for a popular figure where thousands will believe him no matter what. Just like you.
Lawsuits aren't free. And the result is usually to destroy the woman's career and reputation.
Especially for a popular figure where thousands will believe him no matter what. Just like you.
RMS is by no means a popular figure. He's widely considered an extremist. He is heartily loathed by Microsofties, software patent advocates and the like. Only nutters like me share his fundamentalist posture on software freedom.
I find his style of advocacy abrasive. But someone has to stake-out that corner of the Overton Window; his very rigidity is his strength, in that respect.
I find his style of advocacy abrasive. But someone has to stake-out that corner of the Overton Window; his very rigidity is his strength, in that respect.
> You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence.
I used it as evidence of the fact that many prominent members of the community have a negative opinion of Stallman. Not as evidence of anything he has or hasn't done. Please slow down a little and read my comments more carefully.
I used it as evidence of the fact that many prominent members of the community have a negative opinion of Stallman. Not as evidence of anything he has or hasn't done. Please slow down a little and read my comments more carefully.
You really think that she's a prominent member? Next to Stallman or Minsky?
I've never heard of her in my life up until today. And a single sample is not evidence that "many" have opinions.
I've never heard of her in my life up until today. And a single sample is not evidence that "many" have opinions.
[1] Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault. OTOH, calling people "creeps" is totally normal behavior and isn't negative, demeaning and aggressive in any way. If somebody dislikes you, obviously it's your fault.
[2] No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
[2] No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
> Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault.
Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do.
> No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
He did say that. Find the actual email and read it. No, really, please do it. I'll even link a copy of it for you. https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ He literally did say it.
Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do.
> No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
He did say that. Find the actual email and read it. No, really, please do it. I'll even link a copy of it for you. https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ He literally did say it.
> I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him
It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion.
> He did say that.
Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault.
> He literally did say it.
He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.
It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion.
> He did say that.
Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault.
> He literally did say it.
He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.
You're going to have to do better than that. It really just comes across as trolling since you're making the claim that he didn't say something he very clearly seems to say, without any evidence. Abbreviated, for anyone else who can't be bothered to go read it:
>The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
>The injustice is in the word “assaulting”.
>The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
So the claim is that (assuming Minsky had sex with an underage sex trafficking victim), we shouldn't say he assaulted her. Why shouldn't we say he assaulted her? Because it "presumes that he applied force". Why is it the case that he didn't apply force? Because ("plausibly") "she presented herself to him as entirely willing."
So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force".
That is exactly what I've said this entire thread. My original claim, which apparently was inciting enough to cause this furor:
> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
>The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
>The injustice is in the word “assaulting”.
>The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
So the claim is that (assuming Minsky had sex with an underage sex trafficking victim), we shouldn't say he assaulted her. Why shouldn't we say he assaulted her? Because it "presumes that he applied force". Why is it the case that he didn't apply force? Because ("plausibly") "she presented herself to him as entirely willing."
So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force".
That is exactly what I've said this entire thread. My original claim, which apparently was inciting enough to cause this furor:
> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
So let me see if I get your definition of assault right:
It doesn't depend at all on alleged attacker's intentions or actions, it doesn't depend on alleged victim's actions, only thing that matters is if the alleged victim did it for one motivation (wanted it) or other (didn't want it, was forced to do it by some external factor).
I would say that any reasonable person disagrees with such definition.
It doesn't depend at all on alleged attacker's intentions or actions, it doesn't depend on alleged victim's actions, only thing that matters is if the alleged victim did it for one motivation (wanted it) or other (didn't want it, was forced to do it by some external factor).
I would say that any reasonable person disagrees with such definition.
Where, in this entire thread, do you see me define assault? I don't understand what you're responding to. My claim, through the entire mess this thread has become, was and remains that Stallman said something.
Man, I read your entire thread of comments. You are all over the place. Your insistence made me repeat my reading of the RMS email and I think you should just drop this.
The email is extremely clear, and in fact I'm not all over the place. I keep repeating myself so much precisely because no one is bothering to respond to the same, repeated point, which has never changed since my first post in this thread.
Do you have any dispute with my characterization of RMS's comments? Can you defend any alternative reading to the plain meaning of his statements, as I set them out above?
Do you have any dispute with my characterization of RMS's comments? Can you defend any alternative reading to the plain meaning of his statements, as I set them out above?
> So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force".
And here is where you make the switch. The first part is where you repeat RMS argument why he thinks what Minsky presumably did should not be called by the word "assault".
The second part is where you attribute to Stallman that he said Minsky didn't do what we call "sexual assault". That's not what he said. What he said is that we shouldn't call what he did "sexual assault" because of reasons, not that he didn't commit the deed. That's different things - just as saying "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license this shouldn't be called piracy" is different from "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license it's not a crime". You start with the first one and then try to make it looks like the second one. That's where the problem is.
And here is where you make the switch. The first part is where you repeat RMS argument why he thinks what Minsky presumably did should not be called by the word "assault".
The second part is where you attribute to Stallman that he said Minsky didn't do what we call "sexual assault". That's not what he said. What he said is that we shouldn't call what he did "sexual assault" because of reasons, not that he didn't commit the deed. That's different things - just as saying "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license this shouldn't be called piracy" is different from "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license it's not a crime". You start with the first one and then try to make it looks like the second one. That's where the problem is.
If we take "she presented herself to him as entirely willing" as a fact then we can deduce that Minsky did not rape her.
bscphil(1)
I didn't know this fact until you exposed this article to me: that the person who posted their opinion about RMS threatened to "burn it [MIT] to the ground."
RMS uttered some awful opinion, and this person threatened to burn MIT to the ground as a result. If true, this person, who is identified as "Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign" needs to be removed from MIT immediately for making this threat. Is that something that we can all agree on?
Shouldn't we be making phone calls to the Robotics department at MIT about this threat? Why has this received no media attention? "MIT student threatens to burn MIT to the ground" is certainly a headline that would capture attention.
RMS uttered some awful opinion, and this person threatened to burn MIT to the ground as a result. If true, this person, who is identified as "Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign" needs to be removed from MIT immediately for making this threat. Is that something that we can all agree on?
Shouldn't we be making phone calls to the Robotics department at MIT about this threat? Why has this received no media attention? "MIT student threatens to burn MIT to the ground" is certainly a headline that would capture attention.
* This person is a graduate of MIT.
* I have no immediate reason to think they are at MIT, so I don't think it's likely that they can be removed.
* "Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language, which means (as the person themselves said), that anyone and everyone at MIT who stands in the way of firing Stallman should be fired too. (Note that they didn't "threaten" to burn it to the ground, as you say, because then it wouldn't make sense as a metaphor.)
Note that I'm not defending the language or the expressed wish, so don't attack me over that. I'm only clarifying the circumstances in which that statement was made for you.
* I have no immediate reason to think they are at MIT, so I don't think it's likely that they can be removed.
* "Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language, which means (as the person themselves said), that anyone and everyone at MIT who stands in the way of firing Stallman should be fired too. (Note that they didn't "threaten" to burn it to the ground, as you say, because then it wouldn't make sense as a metaphor.)
Note that I'm not defending the language or the expressed wish, so don't attack me over that. I'm only clarifying the circumstances in which that statement was made for you.
Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language
In that case everything RMS is alleged to have said was obviously metaphorical too.
In that case everything RMS is alleged to have said was obviously metaphorical too.
Words ... have ... meanings. You can't just say something was a metaphor because you want it to be.
You literally just did do that! My point is that either everything is or nothing is. You can’t say your friends controversial statements are metaphorical while damning your enemies for the same things.
> My point is that either everything is or nothing is.
Come on, you can't seriously believe that either everything is metaphorical or nothing is. You have to be trolling me.
And these people aren't my friends.
For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left. For example, look at this editorial from only a month ago: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/24/austra... It's right in the subtitle!
Do you think this person wants to literally go get a torch and burn "the gender binary" to the ground? It doesn't even make sense. There's also no way you can interpret RMS as using a metaphor. He gave a defense of Minsky. How are metaphors even relevant? Are you trying to say he was joking?
Come on, you can't seriously believe that either everything is metaphorical or nothing is. You have to be trolling me.
And these people aren't my friends.
For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left. For example, look at this editorial from only a month ago: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/24/austra... It's right in the subtitle!
Do you think this person wants to literally go get a torch and burn "the gender binary" to the ground? It doesn't even make sense. There's also no way you can interpret RMS as using a metaphor. He gave a defense of Minsky. How are metaphors even relevant? Are you trying to say he was joking?
For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left
But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally? Are centrists allowed to say it?
There is no reason not to take it as a threat of arson, or hate speech if you prefer. Words have meanings. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that’s another very common figure of speech.
But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally? Are centrists allowed to say it?
There is no reason not to take it as a threat of arson, or hate speech if you prefer. Words have meanings. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that’s another very common figure of speech.
> But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally?
No. Everyone is allowed to say it, unless it's clear from the context that they are literally threatening violence. In this case, quite the opposite is true. The author of that statement says in the next paragraph that they want the powerful people at MIT turned out if necessary to get rid of Stallman.
> Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the ashes.
I mean, come on, the person who said this was a real threat against MIT wasn't serious. Surely you can admit that.
No. Everyone is allowed to say it, unless it's clear from the context that they are literally threatening violence. In this case, quite the opposite is true. The author of that statement says in the next paragraph that they want the powerful people at MIT turned out if necessary to get rid of Stallman.
> Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the ashes.
I mean, come on, the person who said this was a real threat against MIT wasn't serious. Surely you can admit that.
[deleted]
> have described him as a "creep".
"Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.
By that rationale it should be okay for someone to describe her as "hot", and question her professional capacity on that assessment, e.g. "she is way too attractive to be the EFF's director of cybersecurity", that is, casting aspersions because of personal preferences.
"Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.
By that rationale it should be okay for someone to describe her as "hot", and question her professional capacity on that assessment, e.g. "she is way too attractive to be the EFF's director of cybersecurity", that is, casting aspersions because of personal preferences.
> "Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.
Not really? Where did you get this definition fron?
Not really? Where did you get this definition fron?
> Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep"
Seems like it's a pastime over at the EFF who can be outraged the most in the vilest manner (senior staff technologist):
https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200
From their home page:
"The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation."
Maybe it's time to stop supporting the EFF until they decide to re-focus on their core mission instead of being a den of hypocricy.
Seems like it's a pastime over at the EFF who can be outraged the most in the vilest manner (senior staff technologist):
https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200
From their home page:
"The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation."
Maybe it's time to stop supporting the EFF until they decide to re-focus on their core mission instead of being a den of hypocricy.
Can you provide an actual link for [2]? It's a very serious allegation.
There is none; the people who keep promulgating this falsehood about Stallman say that because of one paragraph that anyone who can pass the SAT reading comprehension tests, parse standard English, or understand the basics of logical reasoning, would have understood that it is simply a wrong interpretation at the level of how 1+1 = 3 is wrong.
It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point.
The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point.
The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
So simple that it requires so many words to explain ;)
Actually, the SAT reading comprehension questions are not that simple and trip people up. Which is really my point of analogy. They're the kind of questions where you either got the right answer or not, but explaining it to the person who got it wrong can be non trivial.
Almost an opposite of NP problems. Easy to solve, but hard to convince someone else that your solution is correct.
I think this part of his emails could be constructed as that
> We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.
Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent.
His opinion on the age of consent is another matter:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5
> We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.
Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent.
His opinion on the age of consent is another matter:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5
It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16.
I believe RMS is on record saying that he thinks the idea of a legal "age of consent" is a nonsense. It's entirely an arguable position that if two 16-year-olds have sex together, they have not necessarily raped one-another. He's saying that it's not the age that makes it rape, and that therefore the law is an ass. The law effectively defines consent as something that cannot legally be given by someone younger than X. Obviously the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they can give consent; RMS is complaining that the law gives X an arbitrary value.
One can disagree with him, either with a proper argument, or simply by denouncing him; but it's not morally reprehensible for him to reason in that way.
I believe RMS is on record saying that he thinks the idea of a legal "age of consent" is a nonsense. It's entirely an arguable position that if two 16-year-olds have sex together, they have not necessarily raped one-another. He's saying that it's not the age that makes it rape, and that therefore the law is an ass. The law effectively defines consent as something that cannot legally be given by someone younger than X. Obviously the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they can give consent; RMS is complaining that the law gives X an arbitrary value.
One can disagree with him, either with a proper argument, or simply by denouncing him; but it's not morally reprehensible for him to reason in that way.
> It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16.
This is not a point I particularly care about, but it's worth pointing out that you are wrong, so far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_Ameri...
This is not a point I particularly care about, but it's worth pointing out that you are wrong, so far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_Ameri...
I don't care much about it either, but thanks for the link. It seems there's a close-in-age exemption that wouldn't have applied in the Minsky case anyway.
> It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16.
Even for American's travelling to that country? Even for prostitution?
Even for American's travelling to that country? Even for prostitution?
This is not the most damning part of the email to me. I excerpted the part I thought most relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394
He didn't said that. But at this point, I think everyone made up their mind about the reading of the email. Here is the original email thread you can read and decide for yourself https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in my comment.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
He did not claim that and did not insinuate that. It's like saying that person that doesn't believe we should use term "piracy" to describe copying software without obtaining license, because piracy implies violent robbery, thinks that violating copyright is OK. It's a total non-sequitur and failure of reading comprehension to the point of functional illiteracy.
Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as 'entirely willing'.
Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime.
But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument.
There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime).
Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly).
Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition.
(With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)
There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime).
Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly).
Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition.
(With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)
> If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument.
I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it hinges on the claim that sexual assault means something that involves coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that (assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not commit sexual assault.
But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't physically force her to have sex).
Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it. The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't say it with no evidence.
I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it hinges on the claim that sexual assault means something that involves coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that (assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not commit sexual assault.
But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't physically force her to have sex).
Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it. The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't say it with no evidence.
You are using phrases 'commit sexual assault' and 'guilty of sexual assault', which in my reading implicates legal level of analysis. Stallman does not use these phrases, and plain reading of his mail clearly expresses semantic argument.
Therefore, your original post could be read as misinterpretation of Stallman semantic argument as legal argument.
Also your original claim "While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions" would IMHO make more sense when your post is read as Stallman making (wrong) legal argument.
Everyone is entitled about per opinion on proper usage of language so it does not make sense why a semantic argument in general or this one in particular would be 'far beyond the pale', considering that his semantic argument makes (IMHO) perfect sense.
Therefore, your original post could be read as misinterpretation of Stallman semantic argument as legal argument.
Also your original claim "While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions" would IMHO make more sense when your post is read as Stallman making (wrong) legal argument.
Everyone is entitled about per opinion on proper usage of language so it does not make sense why a semantic argument in general or this one in particular would be 'far beyond the pale', considering that his semantic argument makes (IMHO) perfect sense.
Surely any charitable reading of my comment would have to assume that I'm responding on the same frequency as Stallman? After all, RMS himself just says
> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
He doesn't spell it out for you that he's speaking about the semantics of "assault". In quoting / responding to Stallman, there's no reason I should have to either. I could (uncharitably) assume RMS meant the legal definition of assault too!
I don't think most of the people who have a problem with what Stallman said misunderstood him. I also don't think you're entitled to just use words however you want; semantics isn't the same thing as defining words for yourself.
Even if you really try to force that position, at best you end up with the view that Stallman thinks someone might be misled into thinking Minsky did something worse than he actually did, where what he actually did was have sex with an underage sex trafficking victim, and what you were misled into thinking he did was physically force an underage sex trafficking victim to have sex with him. He thinks the claims against Minsky are "inflated".
But ... if the former is what Minsky did, that's a really fucked up thing to do. It's assault, as the majority of people seem to understand it. Trying to diminish the nature of the assault by saying that she appeared to consent comes across at best, even under the kindest interpretation, as a really weird point to make. It's incorrect to say that you can't assault someone if they appear to consent. That's what people are upset about.
As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not particularly interested in defending the wrongness of RMS's statement. (I made that point in my OP, actually.) What I'm trying to defend (and rather bemused by the responses to) is the claim that he actually said these things.
> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
He doesn't spell it out for you that he's speaking about the semantics of "assault". In quoting / responding to Stallman, there's no reason I should have to either. I could (uncharitably) assume RMS meant the legal definition of assault too!
I don't think most of the people who have a problem with what Stallman said misunderstood him. I also don't think you're entitled to just use words however you want; semantics isn't the same thing as defining words for yourself.
Even if you really try to force that position, at best you end up with the view that Stallman thinks someone might be misled into thinking Minsky did something worse than he actually did, where what he actually did was have sex with an underage sex trafficking victim, and what you were misled into thinking he did was physically force an underage sex trafficking victim to have sex with him. He thinks the claims against Minsky are "inflated".
But ... if the former is what Minsky did, that's a really fucked up thing to do. It's assault, as the majority of people seem to understand it. Trying to diminish the nature of the assault by saying that she appeared to consent comes across at best, even under the kindest interpretation, as a really weird point to make. It's incorrect to say that you can't assault someone if they appear to consent. That's what people are upset about.
As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not particularly interested in defending the wrongness of RMS's statement. (I made that point in my OP, actually.) What I'm trying to defend (and rather bemused by the responses to) is the claim that he actually said these things.
It is not true where the alleged act took place.
"it seems unlikely that he will be an effective leader and public face for GNU"
He never has been, if you ask me. The Unix-like operating system he invented is known to the public as "Linux", despite his repeated, loud insistence that it's a misnomer. But hell, GNU is his project; in fact it's him. GNU without RMS is not GNU, it's something else.
[1] I don't read twitter, sorry. [2] That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. [3] By "these comments", do you mean his defence of Minsky on the CSAIL mailing list? He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. Read his actual remarks (and read them carefully; he uses precise language). Pay no attention to the way they have been twisted by Vice and TechCrunch - two publishers whose words I will in future be taking with a bushel of salt.
He never has been, if you ask me. The Unix-like operating system he invented is known to the public as "Linux", despite his repeated, loud insistence that it's a misnomer. But hell, GNU is his project; in fact it's him. GNU without RMS is not GNU, it's something else.
[1] I don't read twitter, sorry. [2] That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. [3] By "these comments", do you mean his defence of Minsky on the CSAIL mailing list? He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. Read his actual remarks (and read them carefully; he uses precise language). Pay no attention to the way they have been twisted by Vice and TechCrunch - two publishers whose words I will in future be taking with a bushel of salt.
> That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press.
Please read the thread, including my extensive quotes and links. I'm not making the "distortions" that, say, the Vice article made. In fact, this proves you read my comment too quickly because you assume I did that:
>He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse.
And look at my comment again. I never claimed he did. Vice did. I claimed he did something very specific, which you can find directly and literally in his email. Maybe you don't think he should have been fired over it. That's one thing. But he did say it.
Edit: I saw you were downvoted, so I've upvoted you again in the hope you aren't just here to troll. This thread is toxic enough without people getting arbitrarily downvoted, even if their opinions are wrong.
Please read the thread, including my extensive quotes and links. I'm not making the "distortions" that, say, the Vice article made. In fact, this proves you read my comment too quickly because you assume I did that:
>He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse.
And look at my comment again. I never claimed he did. Vice did. I claimed he did something very specific, which you can find directly and literally in his email. Maybe you don't think he should have been fired over it. That's one thing. But he did say it.
Edit: I saw you were downvoted, so I've upvoted you again in the hope you aren't just here to troll. This thread is toxic enough without people getting arbitrarily downvoted, even if their opinions are wrong.
I know people are decrying the sudden exposure of years of actual issues (including warnings/remedial/probation), as well as skepticism about rumors that are floating around. None of this is new knowledge. I heard rumors about RMS floating back at Berkeley around 1999-2003.
So let's look at the worst case possible circumstance - that a man who repeatedly makes comments that are interpreted as pro-pedophilia and has a history of inappropriate conduct with young (albiet legal) women might actually act in ways that he has publicly justified.
In that circumstance, no one can say that the warning signals were not there. That would be on all of us, and leaving him in a position of power would continue the possibility of abuse.
For the FSF and GNU to have a future (as opposed to "open source"), they need to evolve beyond Stallman one way or other. Associating these institutions with Stallman going forward exposed them to the risk (worst case) of being the catholic church at Stallman's alter. At best, they are fighting a fight that has nothing to do with their primary mission.
So let's look at the worst case possible circumstance - that a man who repeatedly makes comments that are interpreted as pro-pedophilia and has a history of inappropriate conduct with young (albiet legal) women might actually act in ways that he has publicly justified.
In that circumstance, no one can say that the warning signals were not there. That would be on all of us, and leaving him in a position of power would continue the possibility of abuse.
For the FSF and GNU to have a future (as opposed to "open source"), they need to evolve beyond Stallman one way or other. Associating these institutions with Stallman going forward exposed them to the risk (worst case) of being the catholic church at Stallman's alter. At best, they are fighting a fight that has nothing to do with their primary mission.
Stallman has been a 'creep' for decades is all I keep hearing from people in these threads. So why is it that all his victims from decades of his 'creepy' behaviour do not come forward and LEGALLY take action against him? Is the USA not one of the most empowered countries for women? If not in the USA then where? Repeated accusations on the Internet don't count. This is just digital version of character assassination. A lot of people seem to have hated and resented him for various reasons (something that all long-standing leaders accumulate), and they seem to have seized on a suitable 'faux-pas' to whip up as much frenzy as they can and do maximum possible social damage to him. And not one will pursue credible, legal redressal.
To an outsider with no skin anywhere in this, it is just shameful how this has played out.
To an outsider with no skin anywhere in this, it is just shameful how this has played out.
> Stallman has been a 'creep' for decades is all I keep hearing from people in these threads. So why is it that all his victims from decades of his 'creepy' behaviour do not come forward and LEGALLY take action against him?
Forgetting Stallman for a second - This is a weak argument. There are many reasons not to step forward with public accusations of someone; even more reasons not to take legal action; and even more reasons if that person is famous and has significant public credit.
Also, indeed, after a person casts the first stone at someone, others are quick to follow - but that doesn't mean they don't have a good reason to cast a stone; it's just an aspect of human group/mass psychology.
Forgetting Stallman for a second - This is a weak argument. There are many reasons not to step forward with public accusations of someone; even more reasons not to take legal action; and even more reasons if that person is famous and has significant public credit.
Also, indeed, after a person casts the first stone at someone, others are quick to follow - but that doesn't mean they don't have a good reason to cast a stone; it's just an aspect of human group/mass psychology.
How do you think we should distinguish justified and unjustified stonings, if not by due process?
If you mean "due process" in the sense of criminal law - that's certainly not it, for at least two reasons:
1. It puts a very high bar for establishing guilt (at least in principle; in practice it might be a toss-up), commensurate with the punishment being state violence, which is supposed to be a rare and extreme measure not be taken lightly (again, in practice, the US loves to convinct and jail people).
2. A lot of deplorable behavior is legal; and some acceptable or even worthy behavior is illegal.
1. It puts a very high bar for establishing guilt (at least in principle; in practice it might be a toss-up), commensurate with the punishment being state violence, which is supposed to be a rare and extreme measure not be taken lightly (again, in practice, the US loves to convinct and jail people).
2. A lot of deplorable behavior is legal; and some acceptable or even worthy behavior is illegal.
It's not illegal to be a creepy weirdo. I don't recall hearing of any behavior from Stallman that was illegal, just merely socially inappropriate or weird.
That doesn't mean it MUST be 100% tolerated in all capacities though - many organizations might not want to have a creepy weirdo without social graces as their president.
I don't have a personal opinion if Stallman should have been pressured to resign from the FSF or MIT it not, it's not my place to judge. I admit I've never been a fan of his though - he's always come off as incredibly grating to me.
That doesn't mean it MUST be 100% tolerated in all capacities though - many organizations might not want to have a creepy weirdo without social graces as their president.
I don't have a personal opinion if Stallman should have been pressured to resign from the FSF or MIT it not, it's not my place to judge. I admit I've never been a fan of his though - he's always come off as incredibly grating to me.
I think the root of the this was misinterpretations of 'creep' - publicly eating something from your foot might be called creepy - but there is no law against it and it is not against women in any way.
Not knowing details of accusations, but harassment and criminal harassment is not the same thing. The legal system line on where you can use it is quite high and rightly so. I can literally verbally abuse you quite a lot before it becomes criminal or even possible to get restraining order (which is easier). Technically, groping and such are illegal, but unless you have a lot of money quite pointless to try to press the charges and court wont be eager to do whole lot against it anyway (cause they will see groping issue as waste of resources and he said she said issue).
I did not heard any accusation that would cross the legal line afaik. The accusations I have seen are all about inapropriate this or that, but I did not seen accusation of rape or anything like that.
Plus, the actual players involved in that institution seem to talk about these issues in person. Not on blogs or journals. We do not know who came forward with what in FSF or MIT.
I did not heard any accusation that would cross the legal line afaik. The accusations I have seen are all about inapropriate this or that, but I did not seen accusation of rape or anything like that.
Plus, the actual players involved in that institution seem to talk about these issues in person. Not on blogs or journals. We do not know who came forward with what in FSF or MIT.
[deleted]
Creep is a useless term. You can say that anything is creepy.
But it's always better if something isn't creepy, right? So if we remove all the creepy things everything will be better!
Creepiness is in the eye of the beholder, considering that one of the ways to get rid of it is to remove the people who think that a certain action is creepy for example.
Reality is more complex than that though - just like it would be a net-negative to remove a victim of constant harassment in order to reduce creepiness it would also be a net-negative if we removed someone who asked someone else once on a date because someone found it creepy.
Exactly. Words like "creepy" (and "beautiful" for that matter) are not inherent attributes of a person. They are labels applied by the recipient of some action after the fact, based entirely on the recipient's thoughts and emotions. So, something I do can be interpreted as creepy by one person but totally fine by another. Does that automatically make me creepy? Someone, somewhere might find me to be good looking (I can only imagine). Does that automatically make me an inherently good looking person?
People have called Brad Pitt "creepy". Would you rather live in a world where Brad Pitt had never acted so that some people wouldn't have to see his "creepiness"?
In these threads? On hacker news he has almost universal support.
Why would any victim want to destroy their careers by making a lawsuit against such a prominent person.
People like the majority of posters in this thread will call the accuser a character assassin, fame seeker or a liar.
"Is the USA not one of the most empowered countries for women?"
Lol. Just call them a liar and become president or get a seat on the supreme court.
Why would any victim want to destroy their careers by making a lawsuit against such a prominent person.
People like the majority of posters in this thread will call the accuser a character assassin, fame seeker or a liar.
"Is the USA not one of the most empowered countries for women?"
Lol. Just call them a liar and become president or get a seat on the supreme court.
What does he actually do at the gnu project? It was my understanding that RMS doesn't program anymore.
He makes decisions about software. It’s the same position as Linus or Rossum.
Linus and Guido actively write code and merge patches for their respective patches.
Name some impactful decisions he has made recently. Your comment does an immense disservice to Linus and Rossum.
A while back he was blocking things like, a package manager for emacs (that does exist now) and making GCC able to export an AST for external tools to manipulate (in particular for emacs to do semantic editing of code).
In both cases since it would make it easier for closed source software to make use of GPL software.
In both cases since it would make it easier for closed source software to make use of GPL software.
Adding Rust as a first class citizen to GCC.
[deleted]
He still might make decisions, but I doubt he has many technical contributions of his. And quite a few of his decisions can be discussed very controversial.
[deleted]
Here is the quote in question:
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
I found this comment in a similar local discussion, and it seemed to gain some traction instantly. Idk personally if its right or wrong, tbh, but maybe it is worth discussing in the light of recent events.
“””
It is hard to choose to which comment to reply, so I’ll leave a general message to anyone who thinks that RMS resignation is good for a reason that was used for it and that one-sided mob rule is above all.
His comments were formally correct. You cannot beat logic. You can scream and jump through as many hysterical hoops as you want, stigmatize the dead, but you will not get any respect from a majority of thinking population. You will never win this war by shutting throats. It is a war on logic. You will be disliked on a basis of being a noisy moron. All you do now is to train more and more people’s habit to cover real intents and reimplement them in politically correct ways against you, as there is no more place to speak without your picky attention. This virtual noose you invented will finally tighten around your own neck.
“””
It is hard to choose to which comment to reply, so I’ll leave a general message to anyone who thinks that RMS resignation is good for a reason that was used for it and that one-sided mob rule is above all.
His comments were formally correct. You cannot beat logic. You can scream and jump through as many hysterical hoops as you want, stigmatize the dead, but you will not get any respect from a majority of thinking population. You will never win this war by shutting throats. It is a war on logic. You will be disliked on a basis of being a noisy moron. All you do now is to train more and more people’s habit to cover real intents and reimplement them in politically correct ways against you, as there is no more place to speak without your picky attention. This virtual noose you invented will finally tighten around your own neck.
The objectionable bits of his most recent comments were primarily opinion, so I don't know what "formally correct" means.
"Even if it would have been legally rape, it shouldn't be called 'assault' because it would just have been statutory rape, and really we should consider whether statutory rape is morally wrong."
I don't believe there is any formal logic to prove whether it is or isn't appropriate to call something assault.
Goodbye.
"Even if it would have been legally rape, it shouldn't be called 'assault' because it would just have been statutory rape, and really we should consider whether statutory rape is morally wrong."
I don't believe there is any formal logic to prove whether it is or isn't appropriate to call something assault.
Goodbye.
My guess is that "formally correct" here means statements are logically connected into conclusions or potential suggestions. That's how I understood it at least.
>I don't believe there is any formal logic to prove whether it is or isn't appropriate to call something assault.
Iow, you believe that there is no proofs for harm of statutory rape. Why? (I don't understand your goodbye either.)
>I don't believe there is any formal logic to prove whether it is or isn't appropriate to call something assault.
Iow, you believe that there is no proofs for harm of statutory rape. Why? (I don't understand your goodbye either.)
The founding fathers saw this in their time in their countries. They knew the Bill of Rights was of the utmost importance and wrote those things which were necessary for freedom. I dont think that Bill of Rights should change or we will go back to tyrannical governments.
Time to donate to gnu!
I thought contributions to GNU requires copyright reassignment to FSF.. in that case, is not a weak position to lead the GNU project from, if he has no role within FSF?
FSF only needs copyright so they can relicense at will. That is of little impact to GNU.
I guess we can soon expect them to relicense it all to free the world from the viral nature of the GPL.
The GPL is published by the FSF, so they could just publish a GPLv4 that declares all the code property of Alphabet Inc. and the "or later" clause would take care of the rest.
They actually did something like that with GFDL, they added a special exemption, just for Wikipedia[1].
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License...
That's a very different case. The point of licensing a work under the GFDL version n or higher is that the FSF can relicense it under a different copyleft license – like CC-BY-SA. Of course CC-BY-SA and GFDL aren't identical but neither are different versions of the GFDL.
AFAIK there are restrictions to that. Either the FSF can't legally stop advocating for free software or the "or later" clause actually refers to a new General Public License, not to any arbitrary license that is called "General Public License".
It would be interesting to see what restrictions apply to both the FSF and the definition of what constitutes a GPL license. I only considered that the GPL has been published by the FSF in the past so a new one most likely would also have to be published by them.
The FSF is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charity; if it would institute policies to benefit a single for-profit entity, the inevitable IRS audit would be excruciatingly painful and possily result in jail time for directors.
The "or later" clause is at the discretion of the licensee. People who own no copyright of GNU can keep redistributing it under GPLv3 indefinitely, regardless of what GPLv4 says.
[deleted]
I don't get it. Did he just proclaim this to the world without provocation just after lunch?
Also, Chief Gnuisance gives me all these feelings of nostalgia for my teenage years spent learning to compile the Unichrome Linux driver to play Unreal Tournament on a Via VT8378. All that silly nonsense about GNU's Not Unix.
I'm glad the right culture for software was set up back then. It could have gone so many other ways.
Also, Chief Gnuisance gives me all these feelings of nostalgia for my teenage years spent learning to compile the Unichrome Linux driver to play Unreal Tournament on a Via VT8378. All that silly nonsense about GNU's Not Unix.
I'm glad the right culture for software was set up back then. It could have gone so many other ways.
Isn't RMS homeless now? I was told he lived in his MIT office; now that he is no longer there...?
He moved out around 1998.[1]
[1] https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html
[1] https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html
He might be homeless now actually:
https://stallman.org/seeking-housing.html
https://stallman.org/seeking-housing.html
How many honorary doctorates add up to calling yourself “Dr.”?
samstave(2)
[deleted]
Obviously
Frankly, it’s his code. Whatever. It just makes me want to fork his code and make it better
Just make sure to properly freely distribute any changes you made ;)
I guess the abortion "joke" will be staying then.
Oh good. Now the community here will bend over backwards defending him again. It's tiresome and misguided.
1. He said controversial stuff.
2. He's a representative of organizations that don't want him to say controversial stuff.
3. He got kicked around for it.
Quit defending his behavior. It's not a good look. It doesn't matter if you think he's "technically correct" (which is highly debatable, anyway).
You're enabling bad behavior if you think this should go on without any kind of blowback.
This is the tech version of "locker room talk". It's all good so long as you're on the same team, right?
1. He said controversial stuff.
2. He's a representative of organizations that don't want him to say controversial stuff.
3. He got kicked around for it.
Quit defending his behavior. It's not a good look. It doesn't matter if you think he's "technically correct" (which is highly debatable, anyway).
You're enabling bad behavior if you think this should go on without any kind of blowback.
This is the tech version of "locker room talk". It's all good so long as you're on the same team, right?
>the community here will bend over backwards defending him
>organizations that don't want him to say controversial stuff
Quite a paradoxical situation: the organizations in question are no longer fitting - neither the community, nor the leaders.
Stallman co-created and led a community. There were various organizations established to help the community and to benefit from it. Somehow the organizations became detached from both the community and one of the most prominent leaders, to the point of taking a stand against both.
Here's to hoping one day the free software community's voice can reach Free Software Foundation better than the Twitter outrage mob.
Quite a paradoxical situation: the organizations in question are no longer fitting - neither the community, nor the leaders.
Stallman co-created and led a community. There were various organizations established to help the community and to benefit from it. Somehow the organizations became detached from both the community and one of the most prominent leaders, to the point of taking a stand against both.
Here's to hoping one day the free software community's voice can reach Free Software Foundation better than the Twitter outrage mob.
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?
- Please refrain from name calling.
- 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.
- 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!
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.
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.
[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.
Nobody wishes him ill
I mean... it's plainly obvious given what happened that plenty of people do.
I mean... it's plainly obvious given what happened that plenty of people do.
What has he done wrong over the years? I keep seeing people say this in this thread without any reference or anything concrete.
There are millions of more pressing injustices going on right now. The people attacking him didn’t do anything wrong either so who cares at all?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
RMS was sitting in a hot seat when public scrutiny flooded in. With bullets whizzing past his head, he chose to post this language into the public sphere. Bad decision. You're fired.
This is like being in a room with people who may be known to possess drugs and then running your mouth when the cops bust in. "Maybe cocaine isn't so bad!"
Just shut up. Plead the 5th. "Talk to my lawyer, representative or whatever." Take your right to remain silent because any stupid sh you say can and will be used against you.
Stay in your lane, especially as a representative of others. If you're going to run your mouth, then at least wait until you get home and do it on your own equipment using personal channels. And even then you still might be representing others.
Opinions aren't cheap. They have a real cost. You should be well aware of what those costs might be and the risks you are facing. Then go ahead and give your opinion if you're willing to pay those costs. This is a skill everyone needs to have, but many don't. Even if he did the calcs and decided the cost was worth it, he still did so as a rep of an org which didn't share his values.
Gnu must be a different situation and a different culture. I assume he would have already been forced out if it were possible. Maybe they have an air-gapped room in the basement with a desk and a red stapler.
This is like being in a room with people who may be known to possess drugs and then running your mouth when the cops bust in. "Maybe cocaine isn't so bad!"
Just shut up. Plead the 5th. "Talk to my lawyer, representative or whatever." Take your right to remain silent because any stupid sh you say can and will be used against you.
Stay in your lane, especially as a representative of others. If you're going to run your mouth, then at least wait until you get home and do it on your own equipment using personal channels. And even then you still might be representing others.
Opinions aren't cheap. They have a real cost. You should be well aware of what those costs might be and the risks you are facing. Then go ahead and give your opinion if you're willing to pay those costs. This is a skill everyone needs to have, but many don't. Even if he did the calcs and decided the cost was worth it, he still did so as a rep of an org which didn't share his values.
Gnu must be a different situation and a different culture. I assume he would have already been forced out if it were possible. Maybe they have an air-gapped room in the basement with a desk and a red stapler.
> Opinions aren't cheap. They have a real cost.
I.e. "before trying to form your own opinions, make sure you can afford to". Nice world we live in.
I don't disagree with you wrt the current state of affairs, I just find it rather sad.
I.e. "before trying to form your own opinions, make sure you can afford to". Nice world we live in.
I don't disagree with you wrt the current state of affairs, I just find it rather sad.
> I.e. "before trying to form your own opinions, make sure you can afford to". Nice world we live in.
Feature, not a bug. Having a real cost means it could also have real value. When someone has taken a great risk to do something, then it carries more weight to take it seriously. Don't be using fighting words unless you're ready to fight. ;)
And we already know how to do this with our daily actions. It just seems we're too quick to give the mouth a free pass to get loose. RMS believed in free software and much the reason why he has fans is because he backs his words up with his actions. He has worked his tail off over the years and he gives up the convenience that non-free software provides. When he talks about free software, he backs that up with a massive lifetime workload dedicated to the subject.
Why risk that to talk about something which he has no clue about, especially when the heat is bashing the door in. He's representing other people and he's in a public position. The leader in the room is that guy who tells everyone to shut up, flush your contraband down the toilet, don't talk to anyone and look like you did nothing wrong. He failed in that, and he's not the sort of guy I would want in my car if we got pulled over.
If he wants to try something different, may I suggest Legos? Puzzles? If you take up explosives as a hobby, then don't be surprised if you get your leg blown off.
Unless Dave Chappele is your press secretary, stay away from any subjects which might be tagged as "sexual assuault" "underage girls" "age of consent". I got anxiety just typing all that. He's nuts.
Feature, not a bug. Having a real cost means it could also have real value. When someone has taken a great risk to do something, then it carries more weight to take it seriously. Don't be using fighting words unless you're ready to fight. ;)
And we already know how to do this with our daily actions. It just seems we're too quick to give the mouth a free pass to get loose. RMS believed in free software and much the reason why he has fans is because he backs his words up with his actions. He has worked his tail off over the years and he gives up the convenience that non-free software provides. When he talks about free software, he backs that up with a massive lifetime workload dedicated to the subject.
Why risk that to talk about something which he has no clue about, especially when the heat is bashing the door in. He's representing other people and he's in a public position. The leader in the room is that guy who tells everyone to shut up, flush your contraband down the toilet, don't talk to anyone and look like you did nothing wrong. He failed in that, and he's not the sort of guy I would want in my car if we got pulled over.
If he wants to try something different, may I suggest Legos? Puzzles? If you take up explosives as a hobby, then don't be surprised if you get your leg blown off.
Unless Dave Chappele is your press secretary, stay away from any subjects which might be tagged as "sexual assuault" "underage girls" "age of consent". I got anxiety just typing all that. He's nuts.
> I got anxiety just typing all that. He's nuts.
Exactly. I'll never achieve something as big as GNU or FSF - because I get anxiety just thinking at the personal consequences.
Because of that, allow me to be sad that the world thinks what happened to RMS is ok. "Overdue", even, some would say.
Exactly. I'll never achieve something as big as GNU or FSF - because I get anxiety just thinking at the personal consequences.
Because of that, allow me to be sad that the world thinks what happened to RMS is ok. "Overdue", even, some would say.
>bug. Having a real cost means it could also have real value. When someone has taken a great risk to do something, then it carries more weight to take it seriously. Don't be using fighting words unless you're ready to fight. ;)
I miss the good old days when we burned people for their opinions. The ideas were worth so much more when you could get literally killed for a thing your husbands mistress could say you said 20 years ago.
I miss the good old days when we burned people for their opinions. The ideas were worth so much more when you could get literally killed for a thing your husbands mistress could say you said 20 years ago.
> I got anxiety just typing all that.
That's why people who are scared of their own opinion never accomplish anything.
That's why people who are scared of their own opinion never accomplish anything.
If you don't speak you mind, sooner or later it will be too late to speak your mind and the system will become too constricting. It's telling that you are referring to overzealous cops when we're discussing SJWs pressuring rms.
Maybe he thought he was better off speaking his mind (consequences be damned) than shutting up for years and years.
Maybe he thought he was better off speaking his mind (consequences be damned) than shutting up for years and years.
"This is a skill everyone needs to have, but many don't"
I think that may be true. I suspect that skill of knowing when to STFU may be one that is exhibited by some successful serial business leaders; I mean the hired-help sort, not startup CEOs. And I suspect the skill is uncommon among techs and engineers, who tend to have a "whole truth, nothing but the truth" attitude.
I think that may be true. I suspect that skill of knowing when to STFU may be one that is exhibited by some successful serial business leaders; I mean the hired-help sort, not startup CEOs. And I suspect the skill is uncommon among techs and engineers, who tend to have a "whole truth, nothing but the truth" attitude.
[deleted](1)