Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF(techrights.org)
techrights.org
Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
http://techrights.org/2021/03/21/richard-stallman-is-coming-back-to-the-board-of-the-free-software-foundation-founded-by-himself-35-years-ago/
922 comments
I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally offensive.
Ribbonfarm called this a couple years ago:
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/06/a-quick-battle-field-g...
Specifically battlefront #8. He calls it consequential because the the neurodivergent/PC conflict highlights an inherent paradox in the PC worldview. Most applications of political correctness focus (at least on the surface) on defending a marginalized group against the verbal attacks of a privileged one. When applied to autistic or neurodivergent individuals, however, PC norms work to disadvantage an already disadvantaged minority against groups that are both larger and often more economically and culturally free.
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/06/a-quick-battle-field-g...
Specifically battlefront #8. He calls it consequential because the the neurodivergent/PC conflict highlights an inherent paradox in the PC worldview. Most applications of political correctness focus (at least on the surface) on defending a marginalized group against the verbal attacks of a privileged one. When applied to autistic or neurodivergent individuals, however, PC norms work to disadvantage an already disadvantaged minority against groups that are both larger and often more economically and culturally free.
It's like this, I've spent a lifetime learning a rulebook by trial and error that everyone else just seems to know.
It's absolutely maddening when the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up.
I see people clamoring for a safe spaces and I wonder where I can find such a thing? (To an extent I can find one at sci-fi, anime and furry conventions are mostly safe spaces for people like me, it's just jarring when I need to leave)
It's absolutely maddening when the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up.
I see people clamoring for a safe spaces and I wonder where I can find such a thing? (To an extent I can find one at sci-fi, anime and furry conventions are mostly safe spaces for people like me, it's just jarring when I need to leave)
I relate because I've been there, I think. Before I transitioned I had pretty strong ASD and couldn't figure out how to answer simple questions like "what's up?" or if I should wave to someone I've met twice if they're 15 feet away walking towards me.
Transitioning did something to my brain chemistry and let me read social cues nearly overnight, but I got friends by delving into the LGBT community. Maybe furry cons is a good approach?
Transitioning did something to my brain chemistry and let me read social cues nearly overnight, but I got friends by delving into the LGBT community. Maybe furry cons is a good approach?
Wh...a. Transitioning fixed your social cue perception?!
That is incredibly fascinating. I'm not even sure how to classify that... pragmatic psychological function (oookay that's probably not a thing), neurobiology, or what else.
IMO this is a gigantic breadcrumb for Something™. The question is what the axis point was, and what got fixed as a result. Cooool.
I am very curious what else shifted that you'd be happy to share.
That is incredibly fascinating. I'm not even sure how to classify that... pragmatic psychological function (oookay that's probably not a thing), neurobiology, or what else.
IMO this is a gigantic breadcrumb for Something™. The question is what the axis point was, and what got fixed as a result. Cooool.
I am very curious what else shifted that you'd be happy to share.
I have no idea why it happened, I'm just so grateful it did. It was like suddenly seeing color for the first time. When I looked at someone, I could read their intentions and actually feel their feelings. I wasn't a sociopath before or anything, but I couldn't feel empathy.
This definitely does not happen to every aspie trans woman, but I've heard of it happening to one or two others.
I was worried about losing my intelligence, since I attributed a lot of that to ASD, but actually all my major breakthroughs came after transitioning. My first algorithm that got me noticed was like, 6 months in.
The only real downside was that switching to estrogen unmasked my Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, and I've become physically disabled. I'm still able to work and think and feel so it's a good trade for me!
This definitely does not happen to every aspie trans woman, but I've heard of it happening to one or two others.
I was worried about losing my intelligence, since I attributed a lot of that to ASD, but actually all my major breakthroughs came after transitioning. My first algorithm that got me noticed was like, 6 months in.
The only real downside was that switching to estrogen unmasked my Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, and I've become physically disabled. I'm still able to work and think and feel so it's a good trade for me!
The only thing ASD gives me is a measure of clarity - because all of the hidden rules of society are not hidden to me, they're things I need to learn with intent, it gives me a measure of clarity into which rules are required, and which ones are not, when they can be broken and when they can't be.
I'm not gonna say I'd like to be normal, because I have no real construct of what normal would be like - but ASD also gives me one more insight, normality is an illusion foisted on people by society - all humans are some measure of weird, its just a question of how much, and in what way.
Ehlers-Danlos may have shown up anyhow, so that doesnt strike me as a downside even, if that makes sense, if anything you got a benefit by finding it sooner.
I'm not gonna say I'd like to be normal, because I have no real construct of what normal would be like - but ASD also gives me one more insight, normality is an illusion foisted on people by society - all humans are some measure of weird, its just a question of how much, and in what way.
Ehlers-Danlos may have shown up anyhow, so that doesnt strike me as a downside even, if that makes sense, if anything you got a benefit by finding it sooner.
"all humans are some measure of weird, its just a question of how much, and in what way"
This is true. However, from a similar (mild form, partially dealt with) ASD observer point of view, I also noticed that the said peculiarities in one's character are like food ingredients. It's about the way one manages to blend them in a recipe and to cook them into something tasteful (for others) that makes or breaks the social connections. Having ASD is like having no smell or taste of your own and you have to rely on the observed reactions in others for measurements. Obviously, it's a challenge to be a cook in such circumstance and the best strategy (if you care) then probably is just to assume damage and operate in damage control mode all the time.
This is true. However, from a similar (mild form, partially dealt with) ASD observer point of view, I also noticed that the said peculiarities in one's character are like food ingredients. It's about the way one manages to blend them in a recipe and to cook them into something tasteful (for others) that makes or breaks the social connections. Having ASD is like having no smell or taste of your own and you have to rely on the observed reactions in others for measurements. Obviously, it's a challenge to be a cook in such circumstance and the best strategy (if you care) then probably is just to assume damage and operate in damage control mode all the time.
I do operate in damage control all the time, its much much easier to be good at apologizing, than it is to prevent that offense.
So, stereotypically, women are more socially aware than men. Personally, this is something I've definitely noticed strongly with boys vs girls, even from a young age the girls seem to be more aware of others around them and their emotional state, whereas the boys usually seem more oblivious (on average, obviously, not saying this applies to every single girl or boy).
I know many social progressives would argue this is due to socialization...but the effect seems too strong at too early an age to blame solely on socialization to me.
On a related note, I recently read an article about trans men where one noted that they seemed to have become more conversationally impatient, and blamed it on the different hormones: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/20/feat...
> "The hormones made me more impatient. I had lots of female friends and one of the qualities they loved about me was that I was a great listener. After being on testosterone, they informed me that my listening skills weren’t what they used to be. Here’s an example: I’m driving with one of my best friends, Beth, and I ask her “Is your sister meeting us for dinner?” Ten minutes later she’s still talking and I still have no idea if her sister is coming. So finally, I couldn’t take it anymore, and I snapped and said, “IS SHE COMING OR NOT?” And Beth was like, “You know, you used to like hearing all the backstory and how I’d get around to the answer. A lot of us have noticed you’ve become very impatient lately and we think it’s that damn testosterone!” It’s definitely true that some male behavior is governed by hormones. Instead of listening to a woman’s problem and being empathetic and nodding along, I would do the stereotypical guy thing — interrupt and provide a solution to cut the conversation short and move on. I’m trying to be better about this."
I know many social progressives would argue this is due to socialization...but the effect seems too strong at too early an age to blame solely on socialization to me.
On a related note, I recently read an article about trans men where one noted that they seemed to have become more conversationally impatient, and blamed it on the different hormones: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/20/feat...
> "The hormones made me more impatient. I had lots of female friends and one of the qualities they loved about me was that I was a great listener. After being on testosterone, they informed me that my listening skills weren’t what they used to be. Here’s an example: I’m driving with one of my best friends, Beth, and I ask her “Is your sister meeting us for dinner?” Ten minutes later she’s still talking and I still have no idea if her sister is coming. So finally, I couldn’t take it anymore, and I snapped and said, “IS SHE COMING OR NOT?” And Beth was like, “You know, you used to like hearing all the backstory and how I’d get around to the answer. A lot of us have noticed you’ve become very impatient lately and we think it’s that damn testosterone!” It’s definitely true that some male behavior is governed by hormones. Instead of listening to a woman’s problem and being empathetic and nodding along, I would do the stereotypical guy thing — interrupt and provide a solution to cut the conversation short and move on. I’m trying to be better about this."
Autistic MtF programmers is something that happens enough to be a trope, joke or meme.
Also, frankly, many of them happen to be bloody brilliant, seemingly much moreso than average.
This usually doesn't fix their issues beyond dysphoria, though.
Somewhere in the comments here, one of them said "estrogen fixed my social autism". That is really surprising.
No citation in this, but being trans correlates with being autistic
Would seem logical. I was alien enough to boys to land at the "girls table" in school canteen when I was 11. Pieces of experience like this could probably help to start considering the possibility.
This is an extremely dangerous and absolutely insane line of reasoning that is causing incredible harm to young people. You don’t have gender dysphoria because you hung out with girls as an 11 year old.
No. I actually don't know a real thing about gender dysphoria. I just presumed that if you look square and feel round, you are more likely to recognize and embrace your roundness if your other traits make society less consistent in squeezing you into square holes.
This is an awful way to talk to people about their own experiences.
It comes from a reasonable place: It shouldn't be generalised. You may have issues with specific things that were said (or how they were said), but that isn't clear from your response. Perhaps you could add that, so the author can learn.
I take issue with every part of it. The claim that the other person’s experience is dangerous, that it’s insane, that it’s harming children, and that they didn’t experience it.
[deleted]
Why did you make this comment?
Intuitively, it makes sense for something like this to be possible, though I wonder what the trigger is. Drastic change in hormonal balance caused by the transitioning process activating / connecting parts of the brain that were "malfunctioning" previously? Or "just" a result of increased happiness stemming from having dealt with a large problem?Sounds hideously difficult to replicate.
Oh yeah... the dismorphia effect and similar anxieties. Of course. Never experienced any of it myself, didn't realize how big of a potential factor it could be until reading your comment.
I was mostly considering the fact that the female hormone, uh, configuration is naturally pro-social, and that dumping that set of hormone balances on the brain promptly elicits the associated responses - ie, that the response (or rather the tendency for those responses to function properly) becomes a partial function of hormone state.
But those sort of general factors (including elevated mood) would definitely be a part of the end result.
I was mostly considering the fact that the female hormone, uh, configuration is naturally pro-social, and that dumping that set of hormone balances on the brain promptly elicits the associated responses - ie, that the response (or rather the tendency for those responses to function properly) becomes a partial function of hormone state.
But those sort of general factors (including elevated mood) would definitely be a part of the end result.
I'm wary of making assumptions about "natural" differences between males and females, since it's easy to confuse them with cultural stereotypes, ie. what you've learned to think of as "normal" vs. what actually is "normal".
It may well be be that some component that's typically more prevalent in females plays a key role in the development of prosocial tendencies. If such a component were identified, it would be interesting to study its involvement in the development of both males and females.
It may well be be that some component that's typically more prevalent in females plays a key role in the development of prosocial tendencies. If such a component were identified, it would be interesting to study its involvement in the development of both males and females.
Not the poster, but I too am curious about their thoughts, however I have some of my own.
Men and Women experience socialization in fundamentally different ways, because of this I suspect the changing hormonal balance reawakens pathways not used normally, basically. In addition, you basically have a chance while transitioning to relearn socialization from scratch basically, with those new pathways awakened.
Men and Women experience socialization in fundamentally different ways, because of this I suspect the changing hormonal balance reawakens pathways not used normally, basically. In addition, you basically have a chance while transitioning to relearn socialization from scratch basically, with those new pathways awakened.
Hm, that honestly sounds about 90% of the way to a reasonable explanation.
In my own experience I've found as that as a majority of my own marbles have figured out "OH, that's which way is up", my own pragmatic learning capacity has transformed from "transmutation ray that turns everything into indecipherable, unmovable rubble" and... what almost feels like a happy grid of FPGAs that bustle about classifying and organizing without me really having to make much effort. After leaving ideas and subjects for long enough (10+ years in some cases) that old broken memories/associations have just about completely died out, yeah, I definitely can look at things with new eyes.
Discovering that HRT can trigger or you might even say accelerate this process is very fascinating, because it sort of maybe points in the direction of the root causes that break everything in the first place.
In my own experience I've found as that as a majority of my own marbles have figured out "OH, that's which way is up", my own pragmatic learning capacity has transformed from "transmutation ray that turns everything into indecipherable, unmovable rubble" and... what almost feels like a happy grid of FPGAs that bustle about classifying and organizing without me really having to make much effort. After leaving ideas and subjects for long enough (10+ years in some cases) that old broken memories/associations have just about completely died out, yeah, I definitely can look at things with new eyes.
Discovering that HRT can trigger or you might even say accelerate this process is very fascinating, because it sort of maybe points in the direction of the root causes that break everything in the first place.
> or if I should wave to someone I've met twice if they're 15 feet away walking towards me.
To be honest, nobody knows for sure. I call these "Seinfeld moments", as in you could make an entire Seinfeld episode out of talking about it: should I have waived? If yes, I did waive, why didn't the other person waive back? Was it because he/she didn't see me? Was it because he/she did in fact see me but didn't like me? etc.
To be honest, nobody knows for sure. I call these "Seinfeld moments", as in you could make an entire Seinfeld episode out of talking about it: should I have waived? If yes, I did waive, why didn't the other person waive back? Was it because he/she didn't see me? Was it because he/she did in fact see me but didn't like me? etc.
"Wave". "Waive" is something entirely different: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/waive
But maybe Seinfeld could have made an episode about your version too.
But maybe Seinfeld could have made an episode about your version too.
Thanks for that correction, non-native English speaker commenting before my usual morning coffee.
[deleted]
I'm pretty sure you'd find yourself at home there, we also have a large trans/gender non-conforming contingent in the community.
[deleted]
A safe space is simply a space you control, or one moderated in your favor.
So for instance, your house is a safe space if you own it and decide who comes and goes, or if your parents are on your side and kick out people that cross your lines.
So for instance, your house is a safe space if you own it and decide who comes and goes, or if your parents are on your side and kick out people that cross your lines.
I don't think there can be a real safe space. Toxic things for some might not be for others, reassuring things for some might be violent for others. It does not mean we should not try to improve how we behave, but it's important to understand it's impossible to have a generic rulebook we can apply everywhere to be safe with everyone.
As an example, some swearwords might really violent to hear for some people, but disallowing their use will be quite hard for those who lived in an environment where it was important part of communication. And it's often use as a distinction between rich and poor people (at least in France).
As an example, some swearwords might really violent to hear for some people, but disallowing their use will be quite hard for those who lived in an environment where it was important part of communication. And it's often use as a distinction between rich and poor people (at least in France).
[deleted]
Do the rich swear more in France, or the poor?
I too wonder. One thing that I found quite interesting when moving to France was how casual everybody, even high school teachers, was with swearwords.
Not sure where you are from originally, but the US is fairly unique in the world when it comes to these things.
I'm getting on aside note on a side note already but this bumps into something I've been thinking about for days now so I can't resist.
I'm beginning to think the swearing thing in the U.S. has to do with a perception of the concept of "innocence". Because I've noticed a lot of people only begin to have a problem with swearing here when it involves children. For sure, there are people who are just generally against swearing for religious or etiquette reasons. However, having kids really seems to change a large number of people into prudes regarding swears.
I'll admit, when I first heard my 4 year old swear it was jarring. But I thought it through and was like, "my wife and I swear all the time, why can't the kid swear? I can either cave to this uncomfortable feeling or extend my kid the same privallege I extend myself."
At one point, my brother came to stay with us. He swears like a sailor yet when my kid swore, he was shocked. Not 10 minutes before he was cursing in front of the kid.
I also have friends who swore often when we were at college together and they started forbidding swears when they didn't like hearing it coming from their 3 year old.
American culture still has a partial obsession with virginity and the concept of innocence and my best guess is that this subconsciously extends to people's expectations for their children.
I'm beginning to think the swearing thing in the U.S. has to do with a perception of the concept of "innocence". Because I've noticed a lot of people only begin to have a problem with swearing here when it involves children. For sure, there are people who are just generally against swearing for religious or etiquette reasons. However, having kids really seems to change a large number of people into prudes regarding swears.
I'll admit, when I first heard my 4 year old swear it was jarring. But I thought it through and was like, "my wife and I swear all the time, why can't the kid swear? I can either cave to this uncomfortable feeling or extend my kid the same privallege I extend myself."
At one point, my brother came to stay with us. He swears like a sailor yet when my kid swore, he was shocked. Not 10 minutes before he was cursing in front of the kid.
I also have friends who swore often when we were at college together and they started forbidding swears when they didn't like hearing it coming from their 3 year old.
American culture still has a partial obsession with virginity and the concept of innocence and my best guess is that this subconsciously extends to people's expectations for their children.
Here in Spain we try not to swear in front of kids (because we know they will copy it), and we find jarring to hear a kid swear. More or less jarring depending on the word. I remember my surprise the first time I heard a grandma swear (I was a teen at that moment). I assumed grandmas never swore.
America is weird in lots of ways, but discouraging children from swearing, and generally trying to inculcate "polite" behaviour is normal throughout the Anglosphere.
I think the word you're looking for might be "puritanism".
Yes but a little more specifically, a kind of reactionary puritanism. In that it is triggered as a reaction to entering family life and not driven by a set of consistent lifelong values.
From eastern Europe, everybody swore but not openly in school during class.
One more thing: back in the nineties and oughties furries were a punchline in my crowd. Furries were hilarious. You could make any joke funnier by putting a furry in it. They were like Nickleback that way.
Things changed -- or at least I changed. I don't use furries as a punchline anymore, and none of my friends do, and I'm like "c'mon please don't do that" if anyone does.
Sure, it makes it harder to tell jokes sometimes, but who cares about that?
Things changed -- or at least I changed. I don't use furries as a punchline anymore, and none of my friends do, and I'm like "c'mon please don't do that" if anyone does.
Sure, it makes it harder to tell jokes sometimes, but who cares about that?
What's both practically sad and scientifically ridiculously fascinating is that the cognitive dissonance goes both ways. See also, furry culture representation in general.
I'm perfectly okay with us being presented as weird, it keeps the normal people away. ;-)
Did you mean something else?
Did you mean something else?
I remember reading someone come to roughly the same conclusion on /r/furry a while back, it was nice. So yeah, I do mostly mean that.
But the reason there was a bit of extra hesitancy there is that I straddle the line on socialization to the extent that while half my brain would probably love going to a con, the other half would basically be cognitive-dissonance-BSODing the entire time. And I'm not sure if repeating "surrealism is art, surrealism is art" would be enough to get me through; I'd probably end up deciding those three specific people over there were safe and hiding behind them the entire time, while simultaneously responding mostly neurotypically to all the social-cue whooshes as I watched them happen. (The missed cues would be what I was hiding from.)
But the reason there was a bit of extra hesitancy there is that I straddle the line on socialization to the extent that while half my brain would probably love going to a con, the other half would basically be cognitive-dissonance-BSODing the entire time. And I'm not sure if repeating "surrealism is art, surrealism is art" would be enough to get me through; I'd probably end up deciding those three specific people over there were safe and hiding behind them the entire time, while simultaneously responding mostly neurotypically to all the social-cue whooshes as I watched them happen. (The missed cues would be what I was hiding from.)
Fandom interactions have their own well defined rules and norms. I apply one rulebook for fandom, another one for work, another one for non fandom friendly social interactions, just pondering it lightly, I can identify 6 or so unique rulebooks I use for different kinds of social interactions. I suspect I have even more.
Aloha, yeah, I hear you. The world has changed a lot in my 49 years and some of it is unrecognizable to me.
however, this is an imperfect world that needs a lot of change, and it's not going to stop changing, so you're going to have to figure this out. I assume you're a technologist, you are already dealing with constant change? How is this any different?
Think about it this way: Would you hire an SDE who told you they coded down to Java 1.4 standards because that's where their comfort zone is? Java 1.4 is not where the world is in 2021, just like being creepy to your colleagues is not where 2021 is.
however, this is an imperfect world that needs a lot of change, and it's not going to stop changing, so you're going to have to figure this out. I assume you're a technologist, you are already dealing with constant change? How is this any different?
Think about it this way: Would you hire an SDE who told you they coded down to Java 1.4 standards because that's where their comfort zone is? Java 1.4 is not where the world is in 2021, just like being creepy to your colleagues is not where 2021 is.
I will once again say that this is why I don't have a Twitter
>To an extent I can find one at sci-fi, anime and furry conventions are mostly safe spaces for people like me
Is it a safe space when what you say can be video taped and then used against you by all the other areas of life?
Is it a safe space when what you say can be video taped and then used against you by all the other areas of life?
Kids being harmed is always a no no.
It’s been going on for a while already.
Some years ago there was a case where a woman in Melbourne called out a man for harassing her on public transport. Turns out he was autistic and was outgoing to everyone. His friend had to post on Facebook to stop people sharing a video of the autistic man.
Helen Pluckrose also posted on Twitter a similar story. A man she would help checkin on because he was autistic would get complaints from women for harassment. It was a suggestion from his therapist to help him socialise.
Some years ago there was a case where a woman in Melbourne called out a man for harassing her on public transport. Turns out he was autistic and was outgoing to everyone. His friend had to post on Facebook to stop people sharing a video of the autistic man.
Helen Pluckrose also posted on Twitter a similar story. A man she would help checkin on because he was autistic would get complaints from women for harassment. It was a suggestion from his therapist to help him socialise.
Not that long ago there was that Twitter thing where a woman posted a picture of a guy brazenly checking out her top.
Turned out he had a lazy eye and is daughter had to step up to defend him. Quick to judge and make a scene unfortunately.
Turned out he had a lazy eye and is daughter had to step up to defend him. Quick to judge and make a scene unfortunately.
> Most applications of political correctness focus (at least on the surface) on defending a marginalized group against the verbal attacks of a privileged one.
I dispute the idea that PC is mostly defensive in nature; rather it seems to be overwhelmingly offensive, targeting people who frequently aren’t even in advantaged groups themselves. I would also suggest that Jews are treated pretty badly by the PC folks, as are Asians (although #StopAsianHate in the wake of what appears to be a non-hate-crime has been a convenient bludgeon).
I dispute the idea that PC is mostly defensive in nature; rather it seems to be overwhelmingly offensive, targeting people who frequently aren’t even in advantaged groups themselves. I would also suggest that Jews are treated pretty badly by the PC folks, as are Asians (although #StopAsianHate in the wake of what appears to be a non-hate-crime has been a convenient bludgeon).
Honestly asking, what's the difference between someone being neurodivergent and just thoughtless / mean / an ass?
The 'neurodivergent' umbrella covers a much wider set of things than just 'degree to which the person is perceived to be a jerk'. The perception of jerkitude is usually a side effect of something else complicated.
For example, take the DSM5 criteria for ASD, one type of neurodivergence. Here's just a single factor:
Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication. (From https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html)
A formal diagnosis of ASD would involve a number of these factors. As you might imagine, if you stack enough things like that on a person, it'll tend to be noticed, even when they're trying to hide it.
In the context of being mean, upon being told that they were being a jerk, a person with ASD might think "ah shit, not again" or maybe "wait what, no I wasn't, it doesn't make sense that they'd be offended by that" or something along those lines. The nuances of the behavior and the motivations behind it will tend to be a little different than in a 'neurotypical' perceived as being a jerk.
For example, take the DSM5 criteria for ASD, one type of neurodivergence. Here's just a single factor:
Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication. (From https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html)
A formal diagnosis of ASD would involve a number of these factors. As you might imagine, if you stack enough things like that on a person, it'll tend to be noticed, even when they're trying to hide it.
In the context of being mean, upon being told that they were being a jerk, a person with ASD might think "ah shit, not again" or maybe "wait what, no I wasn't, it doesn't make sense that they'd be offended by that" or something along those lines. The nuances of the behavior and the motivations behind it will tend to be a little different than in a 'neurotypical' perceived as being a jerk.
If you’re honestly asking, it’s a rude question as stated. But if you’re sincerely admitting you don’t understand the difference, the difference is this:
Many people (including myself) have difficulty with certain social cues and expectations. Many of us can be offputting or come off as overly direct or disrespectful. Where we diverge is when and how we address that fact. Do we (only) lash out and expect the world to accommodate our conclusions, or do we (ever or readily) reflect on that conflict and try to live in some kind of shared world?
Obviously what I’m describing is a spectrum, not an absolute. But if you’re trying to understand whether someone on the spectrum is a jerk, your answer is “how much do they use their social faculties to navigate sharing a world?”
Which is pretty much the same measure as anyone not on the spectrum.
Many people (including myself) have difficulty with certain social cues and expectations. Many of us can be offputting or come off as overly direct or disrespectful. Where we diverge is when and how we address that fact. Do we (only) lash out and expect the world to accommodate our conclusions, or do we (ever or readily) reflect on that conflict and try to live in some kind of shared world?
Obviously what I’m describing is a spectrum, not an absolute. But if you’re trying to understand whether someone on the spectrum is a jerk, your answer is “how much do they use their social faculties to navigate sharing a world?”
Which is pretty much the same measure as anyone not on the spectrum.
To be blunt, I think a lot of people here misuse autism. The autistic person I had to deal with a lot of times had "difficulty" with social cues in that he was an adult that had no idea of not standing by others when they were working, would endlessly repeat things, was more or less impossible to hold a conversation with, etc. We more or less had to babysit him as impromptu caretakers.
It isn't "oh, I don't know how to read a room." Even granting high function, I feel people use autism in the same way as they do OCD; it's not something you use "neurodivergent" with seriously.
Like generally there's a lot of disability chic or identity these days; but moderate autism makes it incredibly hard to act in daily life in the same way moderate OCD does. If it's significant enough, it's not just someone being brisk or unempathetic in the same way OCD doesn't mean being a neat freak.
It isn't "oh, I don't know how to read a room." Even granting high function, I feel people use autism in the same way as they do OCD; it's not something you use "neurodivergent" with seriously.
Like generally there's a lot of disability chic or identity these days; but moderate autism makes it incredibly hard to act in daily life in the same way moderate OCD does. If it's significant enough, it's not just someone being brisk or unempathetic in the same way OCD doesn't mean being a neat freak.
moderate OCD
People who claim to have "moderate OCD" are just people who like things being tidy, and describe it as OCD because they have no understanding of the real, debilitating condition. Describing yourself as "moderately obsessive" makes no sense, and being able to live with the untidiness means you are not compulsively tidying.
A huge part of the problem with mental health problems is people using the terminology as some sort of 'badge of honor', as if it's something cool and trendy to have rather than an illness that can ruin your life. People really need to stop saying they have OCD unless they've been diagnosed by a professional.
People who claim to have "moderate OCD" are just people who like things being tidy, and describe it as OCD because they have no understanding of the real, debilitating condition. Describing yourself as "moderately obsessive" makes no sense, and being able to live with the untidiness means you are not compulsively tidying.
A huge part of the problem with mental health problems is people using the terminology as some sort of 'badge of honor', as if it's something cool and trendy to have rather than an illness that can ruin your life. People really need to stop saying they have OCD unless they've been diagnosed by a professional.
While I agree they don't fully understand OCD, I think they know enough about it to sympathize. They know enough to know they don't actually have it, just some light compulsions.
And as for "moderately obese"... I wouldn't have previously described myself that way, but I fit it. My doctor tells me I'm medically obese. Nobody looking at me would describe me that way, but they would admit that I'm over-weight. They all say I look fine and don't need to lose more weight, though. If that's not "moderately obese", I don't know what would be.
What the world needs are terms to describe compulsive behavior, succinctly, other than "moderate OCD". I definitely have things that bother me immensely if I don't fix them, but it isn't to the point that I need help with it. I clearly don't have "OCD", but what do I have? There's no word for it.
I've stopped using the term OCD for anything about me, because I know it bothers other people. But I don't get mad at those who continue to use it because there's no proper term, and thus no way to actually correct their behavior. Only to stifle them. And I don't do that to other people.
And as for "moderately obese"... I wouldn't have previously described myself that way, but I fit it. My doctor tells me I'm medically obese. Nobody looking at me would describe me that way, but they would admit that I'm over-weight. They all say I look fine and don't need to lose more weight, though. If that's not "moderately obese", I don't know what would be.
What the world needs are terms to describe compulsive behavior, succinctly, other than "moderate OCD". I definitely have things that bother me immensely if I don't fix them, but it isn't to the point that I need help with it. I clearly don't have "OCD", but what do I have? There's no word for it.
I've stopped using the term OCD for anything about me, because I know it bothers other people. But I don't get mad at those who continue to use it because there's no proper term, and thus no way to actually correct their behavior. Only to stifle them. And I don't do that to other people.
> And as for "moderately obese"... I wouldn't have previously described myself that way, but I fit it.
Obesity is divided into 3 classes: class 1 (low-risk, BMI 30.0 to 34.9), class 2 (moderate-risk, 35.0 to 39.9), class 3 (high risk, 40.0 or higher). Using the term "moderate obesity" for class 2 obesity may not be exactly standard, but it has some logic to it.
> I clearly don't have "OCD", but what do I have? There's no word for it.
Is it possible you have subclinical OCD?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18849913/
(Or maybe subclinical OCPD?)
Obesity is divided into 3 classes: class 1 (low-risk, BMI 30.0 to 34.9), class 2 (moderate-risk, 35.0 to 39.9), class 3 (high risk, 40.0 or higher). Using the term "moderate obesity" for class 2 obesity may not be exactly standard, but it has some logic to it.
> I clearly don't have "OCD", but what do I have? There's no word for it.
Is it possible you have subclinical OCD?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18849913/
(Or maybe subclinical OCPD?)
IIRC, I'd actually be class 1 obese by that list, now. So maybe "Slightly obese"? That sounds even more ridiculous, but it's pretty accurate.
As for the OCD... Even that description sounds worse than what I have. But the existence of "subclinical OCD" makes me even less worried about people claiming to have "moderate OCD" or something. Not only is it a spectrum, but the experts seem to be fine with using the word to describe people that are almost it, with some qualifying words.
As for the OCD... Even that description sounds worse than what I have. But the existence of "subclinical OCD" makes me even less worried about people claiming to have "moderate OCD" or something. Not only is it a spectrum, but the experts seem to be fine with using the word to describe people that are almost it, with some qualifying words.
Maybe they’re not almost, but less encumbered by it than more severe cases.
The thing about a spectrum is it makes room for people who, by necessity or will, share the symptomatic experience but lack some of the disabling impact. The benefit of that inclusion is that those people are able to benefit from a diagnosis and relevant treatment even if they’re not in the direst straits.
In my own experience, this meant that I was able to begin treatment for ADHD even though I’d had over a decade as a successful adult. And that treatment saved my life. Sure, I made it that far with what I could scrap together in myself and my luck in life. But when that wasn’t enough, my “moderate” case revealed its severity. If I’d had access to that diagnosis and care earlier it probably wouldn’t have ever been so severe.
The thing about a spectrum is it makes room for people who, by necessity or will, share the symptomatic experience but lack some of the disabling impact. The benefit of that inclusion is that those people are able to benefit from a diagnosis and relevant treatment even if they’re not in the direst straits.
In my own experience, this meant that I was able to begin treatment for ADHD even though I’d had over a decade as a successful adult. And that treatment saved my life. Sure, I made it that far with what I could scrap together in myself and my luck in life. But when that wasn’t enough, my “moderate” case revealed its severity. If I’d had access to that diagnosis and care earlier it probably wouldn’t have ever been so severe.
Off topic, but using BMI and not body fat percentage to define obesity in an individual seems dubious at best.
> Keys explicitly judged BMI as appropriate for population studies and inappropriate for individual evaluation. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it has come to be widely used for preliminary diagnoses. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#History
> Keys explicitly judged BMI as appropriate for population studies and inappropriate for individual evaluation. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it has come to be widely used for preliminary diagnoses. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#History
> People who claim to have "moderate OCD" are just people who like things being tidy
Some people are actually diagnosed with "moderate OCD" though. Some psychiatrists like to use descriptors like "mild" or "moderate" or "severe" when they make a diagnosis. The DSM-5 doesn't include those terms as specifiers, but that doesn't stop some clinicians from using them anyway. (Clinicians vary widely in how strictly they adhere to the DSM-5.)
Also, while the DSM-5 doesn't include the concept of "mild"/"moderate"/"severe" OCD, some rating scales used clinically in diagnosing OCD do include such a distinction. Y-BOCS (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) scores are divided into four ranges – subclinical, mild, moderate, severe, extreme. A person with an OCD diagnosis who scores in the moderate range of the Y-BOCS will quite possibly be told they have "moderate OCD".
The DSM-5 does include three specifiers of level of insight for OCD: "good or fair insight" ("The individual recognizes that obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are definitely or probably not true or that they may or may not be true"), "poor insight" ("The individual thinks obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are probably true"), "absent insight/delusional beliefs" ("The individual is completely convinced that obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are true"). It is an oversimplification to equate that to "mild"/"moderate"/"severe", but some people will do it anyway.
Clinicians need to convey to patients (and their family members and others) the severity of the individual's condition in terms which lay people will readily understand. Terms such as "mild","moderate","severe", despite their limitations, meet that need.
> People really need to stop saying they have OCD unless they've been diagnosed by a professional.
Self-diagnosis is always a dangerous thing, but I think it includes a big spectrum of behaviours, from "I saw a TV show once about X and now I think I've got it" through to "I've read the DSM-5 and dozens of books and papers on X and I think I've got it". In both cases, the person could well be wrong, but arguably they have a significantly greater chance of being right in the second case than in the first. (And a lot of the time when people who engage in self-diagnosis get it wrong, they actually do end up diagnosed with something, just not the thing they expected.)
Speaking somewhat personally – I've listened to school teachers and psychologists tell me all these things our son does which are "symptoms of autism" and I'm sitting there the whole time thinking to myself "what's 'autistic' about that, I did that too as a child, I even still do that as an adult?" That's not saying that I do or don't have ASD – I've never sought a formal assessment of it for myself, maybe one day I shall, maybe I never will – but my suspicions that I might have ASD probably have somewhat more weight to them than "oh I saw a TV show about it once and now I think I have it".
Some people are actually diagnosed with "moderate OCD" though. Some psychiatrists like to use descriptors like "mild" or "moderate" or "severe" when they make a diagnosis. The DSM-5 doesn't include those terms as specifiers, but that doesn't stop some clinicians from using them anyway. (Clinicians vary widely in how strictly they adhere to the DSM-5.)
Also, while the DSM-5 doesn't include the concept of "mild"/"moderate"/"severe" OCD, some rating scales used clinically in diagnosing OCD do include such a distinction. Y-BOCS (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) scores are divided into four ranges – subclinical, mild, moderate, severe, extreme. A person with an OCD diagnosis who scores in the moderate range of the Y-BOCS will quite possibly be told they have "moderate OCD".
The DSM-5 does include three specifiers of level of insight for OCD: "good or fair insight" ("The individual recognizes that obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are definitely or probably not true or that they may or may not be true"), "poor insight" ("The individual thinks obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are probably true"), "absent insight/delusional beliefs" ("The individual is completely convinced that obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are true"). It is an oversimplification to equate that to "mild"/"moderate"/"severe", but some people will do it anyway.
Clinicians need to convey to patients (and their family members and others) the severity of the individual's condition in terms which lay people will readily understand. Terms such as "mild","moderate","severe", despite their limitations, meet that need.
> People really need to stop saying they have OCD unless they've been diagnosed by a professional.
Self-diagnosis is always a dangerous thing, but I think it includes a big spectrum of behaviours, from "I saw a TV show once about X and now I think I've got it" through to "I've read the DSM-5 and dozens of books and papers on X and I think I've got it". In both cases, the person could well be wrong, but arguably they have a significantly greater chance of being right in the second case than in the first. (And a lot of the time when people who engage in self-diagnosis get it wrong, they actually do end up diagnosed with something, just not the thing they expected.)
Speaking somewhat personally – I've listened to school teachers and psychologists tell me all these things our son does which are "symptoms of autism" and I'm sitting there the whole time thinking to myself "what's 'autistic' about that, I did that too as a child, I even still do that as an adult?" That's not saying that I do or don't have ASD – I've never sought a formal assessment of it for myself, maybe one day I shall, maybe I never will – but my suspicions that I might have ASD probably have somewhat more weight to them than "oh I saw a TV show about it once and now I think I have it".
> but moderate autism makes it incredibly hard to act in daily life in the same way moderate OCD does.
It's hard to live with moderate asperger syndrome, because you typically look and act normal, but are actually positioned in uncanny valley of behaviour. You try to act normally, but your responses are off enough to be mistranslated by others. You are expected to behave normally but you are missing those expectations. People who are visibly disadvantaged have lower expectations on them from the start.
It's hard to live with moderate asperger syndrome, because you typically look and act normal, but are actually positioned in uncanny valley of behaviour. You try to act normally, but your responses are off enough to be mistranslated by others. You are expected to behave normally but you are missing those expectations. People who are visibly disadvantaged have lower expectations on them from the start.
I have a hard time understanding if your mention of the co-worker was supposed to be an example of someone who misused autism or not?
>it's not something you use "neurodivergent" with seriously.
what do you use neurodivergent with seriously. I would think not being able to read a room is a big problem?
>Like generally there's a lot of disability chic or identity these days; but moderate autism makes it incredibly hard to act in daily life in the same way moderate OCD does.
is it incredibly hard to act in daily life with moderate autism, or is having moderate autism and complaining about its difficulties an example of disability chic or identity? It seems like you want to say it is the latter, but phrasing like 'incredibly hard' make it seem like you couldn't possible mean that.
>it's not something you use "neurodivergent" with seriously.
what do you use neurodivergent with seriously. I would think not being able to read a room is a big problem?
>Like generally there's a lot of disability chic or identity these days; but moderate autism makes it incredibly hard to act in daily life in the same way moderate OCD does.
is it incredibly hard to act in daily life with moderate autism, or is having moderate autism and complaining about its difficulties an example of disability chic or identity? It seems like you want to say it is the latter, but phrasing like 'incredibly hard' make it seem like you couldn't possible mean that.
No, it wasn't a coworker; it was a customer's adult child they left with us now and then more or less to babysit. He didn't misuse it at all; the idea of "neurodivergence" would be impossible for him to get. It was more like "rain man" without any of the mythical savantness; i say moderate because he wouldn't need a full time caregiver and could probably act on his own, but worrying about "reading a room" was impossible for him; it never entered his mind.
Having moderate forms of autism is incredibly hard, yes. Severe forms you would need a caregiver and medication for the rest of your life. It isn't just socially awkward behavior or insensitivity, and there's a temptation to medicalize or self-diagnose behavior that way.
Disability chic is medicalizing things that more or less are normal behavior. I feel like with autism people try to make an identity or medicalize some normal traits. I keep using OCD, mostly because I do worry I suffer from it. I am aware of the irony, but i do this more because i suffered from signficant abnormal traits like checking compulsions; hitting a pothole and immediately being afraid i ran someone over, etc. Worrying that you didn't lock a door despite tugging on the doorknob 6 times before you left.I have it light because I don't need drugs to manage it and I'm able to function somewhat in life (though as an adult i worry how much of who I am was because of it)
There really isn't overlap with anything else; like people misuse OCD to mean "neat freak" or forgetful or what have you. Autism though people seem to have some of that; I mean, my customer's son has to be told to not get in people's spaces while many non autistic people may stand too close. It's harder to untangle.
Having moderate forms of autism is incredibly hard, yes. Severe forms you would need a caregiver and medication for the rest of your life. It isn't just socially awkward behavior or insensitivity, and there's a temptation to medicalize or self-diagnose behavior that way.
Disability chic is medicalizing things that more or less are normal behavior. I feel like with autism people try to make an identity or medicalize some normal traits. I keep using OCD, mostly because I do worry I suffer from it. I am aware of the irony, but i do this more because i suffered from signficant abnormal traits like checking compulsions; hitting a pothole and immediately being afraid i ran someone over, etc. Worrying that you didn't lock a door despite tugging on the doorknob 6 times before you left.I have it light because I don't need drugs to manage it and I'm able to function somewhat in life (though as an adult i worry how much of who I am was because of it)
There really isn't overlap with anything else; like people misuse OCD to mean "neat freak" or forgetful or what have you. Autism though people seem to have some of that; I mean, my customer's son has to be told to not get in people's spaces while many non autistic people may stand too close. It's harder to untangle.
I mean this in the kindest way possible. I read more closely through this thread, and I’m glad I did.
First, I relate to your feelings of minimizing your own experiences, and your impulse to minimize others’. That’s not just how I felt before I was ready to get help, it’s something so ingrained in me that it’s a repetitive conversation with my family and loved ones since I have.
Second and more importantly, if you do have those symptoms I sincerely hope you’ll consider talking to a professional. The worst thing that happens is you’ll waste a couple hours. The next worst thing that can happen is you might make some sense of why your brain is the way it is, and it might lead to some peace. It’s all up from there.
First, I relate to your feelings of minimizing your own experiences, and your impulse to minimize others’. That’s not just how I felt before I was ready to get help, it’s something so ingrained in me that it’s a repetitive conversation with my family and loved ones since I have.
Second and more importantly, if you do have those symptoms I sincerely hope you’ll consider talking to a professional. The worst thing that happens is you’ll waste a couple hours. The next worst thing that can happen is you might make some sense of why your brain is the way it is, and it might lead to some peace. It’s all up from there.
Full disclosure: I’m not yet diagnosed ASD, but I have pretty high confidence I will be. The only reason I haven’t pursued it sooner is that the point I acknowledged not just the possibility but the importance of knowing was around the same point I was no longer able to continue at my last job, which was six months ago. So I don’t currently have the resources (insurance) to look further.
That said, while I’m not an expert on the topic, some of the way you responded is right in line with what I’ve seen people with diagnoses express as harmful. I’m sure you mean well, but ASD presents in a lot of ways. Many which are not nearly so debilitating as what you describe, or more to the point, not debilitating in the same ways. The fact that it’s such a common misconception that it is so debilitating across the board is stigmatic.
I haven’t experienced this disability chic, what I’ve seen is the opposite: people afraid to find out because it may be socially limiting beyond their natural limits.
It’s possible that what you see here is a reflection of high incidence of what you call “high function” but nevertheless also a high incidence of ASD in tech communities.
I hope you’ll consider the possibility. I hope you’ll also consider that it took me a full day to work up the nerve to address your response, and honestly it’s such a sensitive subject that I’m probably going to have to stop looking at my phone for the night because I can’t bear whatever potential negative reaction might be coming. But I couldn’t bear leaving it unanswered even more.
That said, while I’m not an expert on the topic, some of the way you responded is right in line with what I’ve seen people with diagnoses express as harmful. I’m sure you mean well, but ASD presents in a lot of ways. Many which are not nearly so debilitating as what you describe, or more to the point, not debilitating in the same ways. The fact that it’s such a common misconception that it is so debilitating across the board is stigmatic.
I haven’t experienced this disability chic, what I’ve seen is the opposite: people afraid to find out because it may be socially limiting beyond their natural limits.
It’s possible that what you see here is a reflection of high incidence of what you call “high function” but nevertheless also a high incidence of ASD in tech communities.
I hope you’ll consider the possibility. I hope you’ll also consider that it took me a full day to work up the nerve to address your response, and honestly it’s such a sensitive subject that I’m probably going to have to stop looking at my phone for the night because I can’t bear whatever potential negative reaction might be coming. But I couldn’t bear leaving it unanswered even more.
Like many many old people my late grandmother would very often complain about her bad heart, she had a perfectly healthy heart that would have never gave her any problem, she only stopped complaining about her heart once other health issue started to appear.
My suspicion is that the reason she was often complaining about her heart was that she in part knew that there was no need to be worried about it.
Openly choosing to recognize the existence of a dragon in your life require either bravery, desperation, or finding a costume to put your cat.
I am not specifically replying to you, I was just stimulated by the topic, but I find it ironic that given a debilitating condition being outspoken about it could maean being of two very different end of a spectrum of experiences.
My suspicion is that the reason she was often complaining about her heart was that she in part knew that there was no need to be worried about it.
Openly choosing to recognize the existence of a dragon in your life require either bravery, desperation, or finding a costume to put your cat.
I am not specifically replying to you, I was just stimulated by the topic, but I find it ironic that given a debilitating condition being outspoken about it could maean being of two very different end of a spectrum of experiences.
> Like generally there's a lot of disability chic or identity these days; but moderate autism makes it incredibly hard to act in daily life in the same way moderate OCD does.
Are you familiar with the concept of broad autism phenotype (BAP)? A person who has more autistic traits than the average person, but not enough traits (or are not sufficiently impaired by those traits) for an ASD diagnosis, has BAP. Someone who thinks they–or someone else–has ASD in the absence of a formal diagnosis–if they are wrong about the person having ASD, they probably are actually picking up on the person's BAP traits.
And how does the experience of BAP and ASD differ? Well, they are just different positions on a continuum–people with BAP have similar experiences to people with ASD, albeit with less intensity and/or less impairment. And the line between them is unclear and subjective, different clinicians draw it in different places–whether you end up with the diagnosis can depend on factors that have nothing to do with you personally, such as the diagnostic practices and clinical culture of the clinicians you end up seeing. (And the line is moving – a lot of people diagnosed with ASD today would not have received that diagnosis if they'd presented with the same symptoms 20 or 30 years ago.)
Stressful environments often exacerbate people's autistic traits and interfere with their own strategies for managing them. A series of stressful life events can lead a person to a situation in which they end up being diagnosed, whereas if their life had taken a more leisurely turn they might never have been diagnosed – even if their innate traits are exactly the same in the two scenarios. One of the key criteria for diagnosing ASD (criterion D) is clinically significant dysfunction, and dysfunction is highly environmentally determined (unsupportive environments result in far more dysfunction than supportive ones given the same underlying condition)
> If it's significant enough, it's not just someone being brisk or unempathetic in the same way OCD doesn't mean being a neat freak.
BAP is subclinical ASD. Subclinical OCD is also a subject of study, although unlike BAP it doesn't have a distinctive name. A lot of "neat freak" people may actually have subclinical OCD. And subclinical OCD and clinical OCD are on a continuum with each other, with a subjective and varying dividing line between them, just as subclinical and clinical ASD are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537443
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26451328
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26312895
Are you familiar with the concept of broad autism phenotype (BAP)? A person who has more autistic traits than the average person, but not enough traits (or are not sufficiently impaired by those traits) for an ASD diagnosis, has BAP. Someone who thinks they–or someone else–has ASD in the absence of a formal diagnosis–if they are wrong about the person having ASD, they probably are actually picking up on the person's BAP traits.
And how does the experience of BAP and ASD differ? Well, they are just different positions on a continuum–people with BAP have similar experiences to people with ASD, albeit with less intensity and/or less impairment. And the line between them is unclear and subjective, different clinicians draw it in different places–whether you end up with the diagnosis can depend on factors that have nothing to do with you personally, such as the diagnostic practices and clinical culture of the clinicians you end up seeing. (And the line is moving – a lot of people diagnosed with ASD today would not have received that diagnosis if they'd presented with the same symptoms 20 or 30 years ago.)
Stressful environments often exacerbate people's autistic traits and interfere with their own strategies for managing them. A series of stressful life events can lead a person to a situation in which they end up being diagnosed, whereas if their life had taken a more leisurely turn they might never have been diagnosed – even if their innate traits are exactly the same in the two scenarios. One of the key criteria for diagnosing ASD (criterion D) is clinically significant dysfunction, and dysfunction is highly environmentally determined (unsupportive environments result in far more dysfunction than supportive ones given the same underlying condition)
> If it's significant enough, it's not just someone being brisk or unempathetic in the same way OCD doesn't mean being a neat freak.
BAP is subclinical ASD. Subclinical OCD is also a subject of study, although unlike BAP it doesn't have a distinctive name. A lot of "neat freak" people may actually have subclinical OCD. And subclinical OCD and clinical OCD are on a continuum with each other, with a subjective and varying dividing line between them, just as subclinical and clinical ASD are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537443
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26451328
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26312895
I'm not sure you can reduce it to traits in the method you mean. I think mostly it severity. I do think stress can have something to do with it.
I mean, there is no "neat freak" trait; that's something people who don't have OCD use because they think that's part of what it is. It's more intrusive thoughts about contamination, and there isn't a spectrum of those traits. Like you can't really "train" yourself to not be contaminated, in the way autism people talk about training to deal with social conditions. Trying to argue against it reinforces the behavior. It happens despite you knowing its totally irrational
I think I get BAP if you mean "the condition isn't severe enough to significantly impair your life," but I can see similarities between my checking behavior and people suffering the same but worse; I'm just fortunate enough that it doens't occur frequently. The talk about autism though is a different kind of talk; the moderate or severe sufferers are different.
Like the person I mention never got better or could use coping stuff; he would if anything just end up unable to talk possibly because he was medicated sometimes. I understand I'm not a clinician, but there's a lot of "spectrum" behavior in things now; you have gender spectrums, sexual spectrums (asexual, demisexual, sapiosexual), and I'm not sure the concepts aren't just medicalizing normal variation or individual temperament. I wish i could be doing this for me, if anything.
I mean, there is no "neat freak" trait; that's something people who don't have OCD use because they think that's part of what it is. It's more intrusive thoughts about contamination, and there isn't a spectrum of those traits. Like you can't really "train" yourself to not be contaminated, in the way autism people talk about training to deal with social conditions. Trying to argue against it reinforces the behavior. It happens despite you knowing its totally irrational
I think I get BAP if you mean "the condition isn't severe enough to significantly impair your life," but I can see similarities between my checking behavior and people suffering the same but worse; I'm just fortunate enough that it doens't occur frequently. The talk about autism though is a different kind of talk; the moderate or severe sufferers are different.
Like the person I mention never got better or could use coping stuff; he would if anything just end up unable to talk possibly because he was medicated sometimes. I understand I'm not a clinician, but there's a lot of "spectrum" behavior in things now; you have gender spectrums, sexual spectrums (asexual, demisexual, sapiosexual), and I'm not sure the concepts aren't just medicalizing normal variation or individual temperament. I wish i could be doing this for me, if anything.
> It's more intrusive thoughts about contamination, and there isn't a spectrum of those traits.
There is a continuum of intrusive thoughts – the continuum of frequency and intensity of those thoughts, the continuum of how easy it is to move on from them, etc. And a single individual can move back and forward along that continuum over time, in response to life events, development/maturity/ageing, and other factors. We say they have OCD if (a) they have enough frequency/intensity/etc of those intrusive thoughts, (b) the intrusive thoughts are sufficiently impairing in their everyday life, (c) there isn't some other disorder which better explains those intrusive thoughts. We draw a line on the continuum, and say this side is "OCD" (or maybe some other disorder), and the other side isn't, but that line is inevitably a subjective clinical judgement call
> The talk about autism though is a different kind of talk; the moderate or severe sufferers are different.
You mention "moderate" and "severe" – what about "mild ASD"? I guess what used to be called Aspergers syndrome?
> Like the person I mention never got better or could use coping stuff
You can't draw a lot of conclusions from a single person. You can't say that people with milder, less noticeable symptoms don't exist.
There is a continuum of intrusive thoughts – the continuum of frequency and intensity of those thoughts, the continuum of how easy it is to move on from them, etc. And a single individual can move back and forward along that continuum over time, in response to life events, development/maturity/ageing, and other factors. We say they have OCD if (a) they have enough frequency/intensity/etc of those intrusive thoughts, (b) the intrusive thoughts are sufficiently impairing in their everyday life, (c) there isn't some other disorder which better explains those intrusive thoughts. We draw a line on the continuum, and say this side is "OCD" (or maybe some other disorder), and the other side isn't, but that line is inevitably a subjective clinical judgement call
> The talk about autism though is a different kind of talk; the moderate or severe sufferers are different.
You mention "moderate" and "severe" – what about "mild ASD"? I guess what used to be called Aspergers syndrome?
> Like the person I mention never got better or could use coping stuff
You can't draw a lot of conclusions from a single person. You can't say that people with milder, less noticeable symptoms don't exist.
Agreed.
I've spent a lifetime learning a rulebook by trial and error that everyone else just seems to know.
It's absolutely maddening then the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up.
I've spent a lifetime learning a rulebook by trial and error that everyone else just seems to know.
It's absolutely maddening then the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up.
I’m sorry I didn’t see this sooner. Just want to say I’ve felt this, most of my life. I wish I had more to offer than this but: you’re not alone, and I hope knowing that will be as helpful to you as it’s been to me.
Thank You! This whole post, and another comment I made on this thread was super affirming, its nice to know I'm not alone.
It's why what people call 'cancel culture' scares the snot out of me, I'm deathly afraid I'm gonna say or do the wrong thing, and not really have a way to respond to it, and pay some sort of heavy toll. I'm okay with free speech having consequences (its the only way to ensure we can actually have speech mostly free of government regulation). I just wish those consequences were not applied for things deemed ex post facto (often by decades) to be violations of social norms.
But there is a certain amount of mental exhaustion from having to filter everything I say outside of some very very narrow circles, lest I say something that could be deemed in the future to be 'problematic'.
The larger issue I see, is our current focus on peoples actions in the past is it leaves no room for personal growth or to change views, it if anything hardens people views and perspectives - if someone gets no credit for getting better about something (like use of pronouns, or whatever else), there is no incentive to improve.
It's why what people call 'cancel culture' scares the snot out of me, I'm deathly afraid I'm gonna say or do the wrong thing, and not really have a way to respond to it, and pay some sort of heavy toll. I'm okay with free speech having consequences (its the only way to ensure we can actually have speech mostly free of government regulation). I just wish those consequences were not applied for things deemed ex post facto (often by decades) to be violations of social norms.
But there is a certain amount of mental exhaustion from having to filter everything I say outside of some very very narrow circles, lest I say something that could be deemed in the future to be 'problematic'.
The larger issue I see, is our current focus on peoples actions in the past is it leaves no room for personal growth or to change views, it if anything hardens people views and perspectives - if someone gets no credit for getting better about something (like use of pronouns, or whatever else), there is no incentive to improve.
"Does wearing this thing make me look fat?"
"A bit. If your goal is to look thinner I'd try that other thing instead."
Is this a neurotypical person being a butt, or an autistic person trying to be helpful?
Answer: yes.
"A bit. If your goal is to look thinner I'd try that other thing instead."
Is this a neurotypical person being a butt, or an autistic person trying to be helpful?
Answer: yes.
Why is the person answering here considered to be the butt and not the person setting up the trap? Generally I believe it is know that there is no good answers to this question. So maybe we should assign blame on person asking it? That is if they don't really want the honest answer.
That's good way to put it. A more obvious trap question would be "have you stopped beating your wife?"
It could be a neurotypical Dutch being themselves. Societal norms vary from culture to culture, even within what we call the western world.
also a Dane I think, frankly it seemed polite.
American here. I can recognize that it's considered rude here to admit someone is overweight, even if they ask.
So I would never answer this question to someone who didn't love me. And even then, they get offended, even though they ask.
Instead, my answer is, "Nope, not gonna answer that." And then they get mad anyhow.
So the comment above about the "trap" is correct. That person started the rudeness, but they won't take the heat for it.
So I would never answer this question to someone who didn't love me. And even then, they get offended, even though they ask.
Instead, my answer is, "Nope, not gonna answer that." And then they get mad anyhow.
So the comment above about the "trap" is correct. That person started the rudeness, but they won't take the heat for it.
Also Scandinavian and I agree with you. Also Americans lying about these things are often seen as being fake and thus rude.
As a southern European, I concur that US-ian fake politeness is quite disturbing.
As a southern American, I'd chalk a lot of it up to our multiculturalism. There are different parts within the US, where you'd get different answers to that question, almost always!
But I'd say suggestion and (to use the southern term) social grace is one of the most nuanced and culture-heavy forms of communication. In that it assumes a lot of shared culture between you and the other party.
As least down here, with > stranger, < intimate partner, you'd get a "No" in all cases, but the words attached to the no would also differ almost 100% of the time in the "No, but..." case.
And I imagine most of those cues completely disappear cross-culturally.
But I'd say suggestion and (to use the southern term) social grace is one of the most nuanced and culture-heavy forms of communication. In that it assumes a lot of shared culture between you and the other party.
As least down here, with > stranger, < intimate partner, you'd get a "No" in all cases, but the words attached to the no would also differ almost 100% of the time in the "No, but..." case.
And I imagine most of those cues completely disappear cross-culturally.
> most of those cues completely disappear cross-culturally.
If they simply disappeared, it would be alright. The problem is when they have the exact opposite meaning.
One example is US-ian unnaturally white teeth, that supposedly look OK there, but are somewhat creepy in the rest of the world. I mean, human teeth are not supposed to be white, but a range of very light ivory tones.
If they simply disappeared, it would be alright. The problem is when they have the exact opposite meaning.
One example is US-ian unnaturally white teeth, that supposedly look OK there, but are somewhat creepy in the rest of the world. I mean, human teeth are not supposed to be white, but a range of very light ivory tones.
> The problem is when they have the exact opposite meaning
Granted! But also when they have no meaning, or are just... odd (e.g. "That's weird, how do they want me to respond to that reply they just made?")
White teeth are totally creepy here too. If you ask any US dentist, they'll tell you to match eye white (varies from individual to individual) to look natural.
But, then, there's a few "beautiful people" states where norms are so out of whack they don't realize how weird it is.
Granted! But also when they have no meaning, or are just... odd (e.g. "That's weird, how do they want me to respond to that reply they just made?")
White teeth are totally creepy here too. If you ask any US dentist, they'll tell you to match eye white (varies from individual to individual) to look natural.
But, then, there's a few "beautiful people" states where norms are so out of whack they don't realize how weird it is.
I'm Swiss (from a French-speaking canton), that seems polite to me too.
Could you please leave us out of this?
I think there's another factor here not mentioned by other commenters - it is possible to be both neurodivergent and an ass, but it can often be a lot easier to discover that a neurodivergent person is an ass. Neurotypical assholes will usually be pretty good at controlling their public image.
So even if we suppose that cancel culture somehow has 0 false positives (which I highly doubt), it's likely that many more neurodivergent assholes will be "caught" than neurotypical ones. Which feels functionally very similar to profiling IMO, and practically means we are probably not catching the more "dangerous" assholes. Because it's a lot easier to ignore an asshole view if you're aware of it.
So even if we suppose that cancel culture somehow has 0 false positives (which I highly doubt), it's likely that many more neurodivergent assholes will be "caught" than neurotypical ones. Which feels functionally very similar to profiling IMO, and practically means we are probably not catching the more "dangerous" assholes. Because it's a lot easier to ignore an asshole view if you're aware of it.
By separating intention and action. Everyone can be perceived as thoughtless or mean or an arse by anyone else for any action, but we also know from experience when we've been the "baddy" that we may have had good intentions, even the best.
I'm sure you also know of times - I know I do for myself - of times you've knowingly and purposively been an arse.
There's the biggest difference.
I'm sure you also know of times - I know I do for myself - of times you've knowingly and purposively been an arse.
There's the biggest difference.
Without being too trite: intent.
Sometimes people think I'm being awkward or uncomfortable, but mostly I'm tripping over myself trying (and failing) to find the right things to say. People expect that you can read them, and read the situation in real time. I can't (although usually I can gather how it's all gone wrong once the moment has passed -- a double-edged sword.)
Sometimes people think I'm being awkward or uncomfortable, but mostly I'm tripping over myself trying (and failing) to find the right things to say. People expect that you can read them, and read the situation in real time. I can't (although usually I can gather how it's all gone wrong once the moment has passed -- a double-edged sword.)
There can be a very fine line. A few years ago I worked with someone who was a bullying objectionable arse especially to younger staff. Eventually it all caught up with him and with HR breathing down his neck he managed to acquire a Asperger's diagnosis which was his get out of jail free card. A colleague of mine called it 'medicalising c*ntishness'.
Asperger's syndrome doesn't exist as a diagnosis anymore because the diagnosis was dropped in DSM-5. When it existed, I can assure you, it was not something you just acquired like a toy in a box of cereals.
What counts as "neurodivergent"? Just ASD? What about other psychiatric diagnoses?
A lot of "non-autistic assholes" may have other diagnosable conditions, for example narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Are NPD or ASPD "neurodiverse" or "neurodivergent"? They are probably partially genetic, just as ASD is probably partially genetic.
A lot of "non-autistic assholes" may have other diagnosable conditions, for example narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Are NPD or ASPD "neurodiverse" or "neurodivergent"? They are probably partially genetic, just as ASD is probably partially genetic.
Frankly, just about everyone would be "neurodivergent" in a different culture.
To some extent yes, but have you ever interacted with RMS? His behavior goes way beyond the typical "coder with Asperger's" borderline cases you're thinking of.
Only after one of his talks on software, not in a personal capacity. I didn't observe anything peculiar about his behaviour - except for the deep commitment to free software. But this was nearly a decade ago...
Other commonly classified neurodivergent diagnoses are ADHD and OCD (which along with ASD commonly overlap). They don’t have much overlap with personality disorders (which do have a lot of overlap among that category).
> Other commonly classified neurodivergent diagnoses are ADHD and OCD (which along with ASD commonly overlap)
What makes those diagnoses "neurodivergent" and the others not? Why aren't other diagnoses "neurodivergent" too? How exactly do we define "neurodivergent"? (And why is that the right definition to use?)
> They don’t have much overlap with personality disorders (which do have a lot of overlap among that category).
There is a lot of overlap between the disruptive behaviour disorders (DBDs) – oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) – and ADHD; so much so that ADHD is sometimes considered a DBD along with ODD and CD. And there is a clear connection between CD in children and adolescents and ASPD in adults – indeed, a child or adolescent with CD can follow one of two trajectories, either their conduct problems resolve with maturity and they become law-abiding pro-social adults, or else the child/adolescent diagnosis of CD evolves into the adult diagnosis of ASPD. So there is definitely a connection between ASPD and ADHD. A child with ADHD (even without comorbid CD) has an increased risk of developing ASPD as an adult – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284138/
Some researchers consider ASPD to be a neurodevelopmental disorder – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29401045/ – which is the same category that ASD and ADHD (and sometimes also OCD) are put in.
There is also a lot of overlap between ADHD and BPD (Borderline personality disorder) – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739390/
There's also overlap between ASD and BPD – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590952/
What makes those diagnoses "neurodivergent" and the others not? Why aren't other diagnoses "neurodivergent" too? How exactly do we define "neurodivergent"? (And why is that the right definition to use?)
> They don’t have much overlap with personality disorders (which do have a lot of overlap among that category).
There is a lot of overlap between the disruptive behaviour disorders (DBDs) – oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) – and ADHD; so much so that ADHD is sometimes considered a DBD along with ODD and CD. And there is a clear connection between CD in children and adolescents and ASPD in adults – indeed, a child or adolescent with CD can follow one of two trajectories, either their conduct problems resolve with maturity and they become law-abiding pro-social adults, or else the child/adolescent diagnosis of CD evolves into the adult diagnosis of ASPD. So there is definitely a connection between ASPD and ADHD. A child with ADHD (even without comorbid CD) has an increased risk of developing ASPD as an adult – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284138/
Some researchers consider ASPD to be a neurodevelopmental disorder – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29401045/ – which is the same category that ASD and ADHD (and sometimes also OCD) are put in.
There is also a lot of overlap between ADHD and BPD (Borderline personality disorder) – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739390/
There's also overlap between ASD and BPD – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590952/
Intent and justification.
Intent is the easier one to understand. Neurodivergent often don't act with the same intent that someone being an asshole does. Two people tell you that you shouldn't be eating that cookie. One is intending to be mean an to hurt you. The other cares about you and means the message in the best interest of your health, not realizing it will hurt.
With time and some prompting they can be led to understand how the message would be interpreted and realize it is hurt and stop, but it happens much slower and is often too little too late.
Justification is the harder to understand or empathize with possibility. Due to the previous issue impacting every area of life, often resulting in a significant decrease in quality of life and a significant increase in emotional pain, some will lower the extent they empathize with others. It is harder to explain because people think of their own times being hurt by others and think how they had the option to just do better than was done to them and rise above, not conceptualizing what qualitative differences occur when a pain goes from a short term event to a life long occurrence.
One further problem is that justification is only sometimes deemed appropriate by society. The differences in what are deemed appropriate differ strongly enough I'm hesitant to list examples because many will consider just making the comparison as a very asshole move. I am not at all clear if this consideration is in good faith or not.
Intent is the easier one to understand. Neurodivergent often don't act with the same intent that someone being an asshole does. Two people tell you that you shouldn't be eating that cookie. One is intending to be mean an to hurt you. The other cares about you and means the message in the best interest of your health, not realizing it will hurt.
With time and some prompting they can be led to understand how the message would be interpreted and realize it is hurt and stop, but it happens much slower and is often too little too late.
Justification is the harder to understand or empathize with possibility. Due to the previous issue impacting every area of life, often resulting in a significant decrease in quality of life and a significant increase in emotional pain, some will lower the extent they empathize with others. It is harder to explain because people think of their own times being hurt by others and think how they had the option to just do better than was done to them and rise above, not conceptualizing what qualitative differences occur when a pain goes from a short term event to a life long occurrence.
One further problem is that justification is only sometimes deemed appropriate by society. The differences in what are deemed appropriate differ strongly enough I'm hesitant to list examples because many will consider just making the comparison as a very asshole move. I am not at all clear if this consideration is in good faith or not.
warning: super anecdotal
I have found the difference to be willingness to reflect or to what extent they are trying.
A lot of my socially clueless friends (can't speak for if they lie on the spectrum) are delighted when I offer them a new set of rules that were previously invisible, instead of insulting them for not 'getting it'. They love being told what the lines between mean&blunt or curt&concise are. They can work around context well too, as long as it is explicitly laid out to them.
Mean people (adults) are usually one of:
1. Neuro-diverse people who don't know they are mean
2. People with insecurities they are trying to work on
3. People with insecurities they refuse to acknowledge
#3 is not worth it. #2 can seek help using traditional means. #1 needs some training wheels and personalized instruction to work their way up to socially well adjusted. Think of it as a person with a learning disability.
I have found the difference to be willingness to reflect or to what extent they are trying.
A lot of my socially clueless friends (can't speak for if they lie on the spectrum) are delighted when I offer them a new set of rules that were previously invisible, instead of insulting them for not 'getting it'. They love being told what the lines between mean&blunt or curt&concise are. They can work around context well too, as long as it is explicitly laid out to them.
Mean people (adults) are usually one of:
1. Neuro-diverse people who don't know they are mean
2. People with insecurities they are trying to work on
3. People with insecurities they refuse to acknowledge
#3 is not worth it. #2 can seek help using traditional means. #1 needs some training wheels and personalized instruction to work their way up to socially well adjusted. Think of it as a person with a learning disability.
Wether or not you like them.
Whether they can control it?
Then why would someone choose to be an ass - or generally choose to be unlikable?
Stallman was defending a friend and, by my reading, logically correct in the narrow point he was making. Anyone can sympathize with those priorities. However, he chose to place them above social realpolitik like "don't touch sufficiently radioactive subjects" and "almost nobody has time to dissect your argument so you'll win or lose the optics game on fuzzy associations alone." To be principled in this matter was to be antisocial. Most of us, myself included, would drop the principles in order to get along with everyone else, but that's not how Stallman rolled.
I agree, but I'd note that Stallman was head of the FSF in part because he would never drop the principles no matter what the stakes.
It's usually a matter of priorities.
Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them.
Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually harass women because 1 out of 10 times, it gets them laid. Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. Or they stop paying rent because there's an eviction moratorium, even though they could, because it saves them money and their landlord has no way to enforce agreements anyway. Or they sell drugs to children because they want money. Or they cut people down because it makes them feel big in the moment.
Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them.
Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually harass women because 1 out of 10 times, it gets them laid. Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. Or they stop paying rent because there's an eviction moratorium, even though they could, because it saves them money and their landlord has no way to enforce agreements anyway. Or they sell drugs to children because they want money. Or they cut people down because it makes them feel big in the moment.
> Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic.
This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour.
Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it.
This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour.
Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it.
These are all examples where one party in the interaction has come away from it saying "What a jerk!"
I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same.
I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same.
This is entirely contextual.
It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery.
Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away.
It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery.
Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away.
> It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically.
Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole.
I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.
Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole.
I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.
In the extreme, it totally is. It's important to be right about the important things; it's nice to be right about irrelevant details too, but it's not nearly as important as maintaining a strong network of collaborators.
Maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky in who I associate with, but no-one I would consider a potential "collaborator" (either in professional or personal life) would ever demand I be incorrect about something to suit their ideals.
I've been trying to come up with examples where that might happen and the best one I can think of is someone's young child asked you if Santa was real, but even then I'm about 50/50 on whether anyone in my social circles would care. I know at least a few who'd be pretty disgusted if I didn't tell the truth in that situation.
Now I recognise that this almost certainly is not representative of the general populace, but this is also one specific example (and the most egregious one I could come up with), whereas there's entire history courses written on the catastrophes that occur when people choose diplomacy over the right thing.
I've been trying to come up with examples where that might happen and the best one I can think of is someone's young child asked you if Santa was real, but even then I'm about 50/50 on whether anyone in my social circles would care. I know at least a few who'd be pretty disgusted if I didn't tell the truth in that situation.
Now I recognise that this almost certainly is not representative of the general populace, but this is also one specific example (and the most egregious one I could come up with), whereas there's entire history courses written on the catastrophes that occur when people choose diplomacy over the right thing.
Well, that's kinda the thing. If something was in one of those history courses, then they were important enough that it mattered.
Playing into the Santa Claus lie with your friend's kid is absolutely inconsequential to you, but it could mean a lot to that kid (and to the parents) to keep that lie alive a bit longer. (And if telling the truth to that kid, against what the parents would wish, is that important to you, I'd suggest you re-examine your priorities.)
Context matters! Sometimes being right is essential to making some important thing work out. But hey, sometimes being diplomatic (and allowing the other person to be wrong) also can be essential to make some important thing work out. The big thing is knowing the difference and acting appropriately, which is sometimes hard to do in the moment.
But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. If the parents really don't care, sure, go nuts... though if they didn't care, I'd expect the kid to already know the truth anyway.
Playing into the Santa Claus lie with your friend's kid is absolutely inconsequential to you, but it could mean a lot to that kid (and to the parents) to keep that lie alive a bit longer. (And if telling the truth to that kid, against what the parents would wish, is that important to you, I'd suggest you re-examine your priorities.)
Context matters! Sometimes being right is essential to making some important thing work out. But hey, sometimes being diplomatic (and allowing the other person to be wrong) also can be essential to make some important thing work out. The big thing is knowing the difference and acting appropriately, which is sometimes hard to do in the moment.
But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question. If the parents really don't care, sure, go nuts... though if they didn't care, I'd expect the kid to already know the truth anyway.
> But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question.
Why is the desire of the parents more important than the desire of the child? Remember that we're talking about a scenario where the child is explicitly asking. They want you to tell the truth, their parents want you to perpetuate a lie. It's an easy choice for me to make.
Why is the desire of the parents more important than the desire of the child? Remember that we're talking about a scenario where the child is explicitly asking. They want you to tell the truth, their parents want you to perpetuate a lie. It's an easy choice for me to make.
Because we as a society have decided that children are not capable of making informed decisions, so parents get to decide for them on many/most/all things (the number of which tends to decrease with age, zeroing out at 18 or whatever the local age of majority is). You may not agree with that state of affairs, but that is the reality of the situation.
You may not see the useful function of the Santa Claus fantasy[0], but it is not your (or my) place to decide that for a child or their parents.
Let's try with something a bit less trivial, something that my young nephew had to deal with not too long ago: death. One day kid realizes that grandpa hasn't visited in a long while, and ask parent what's up. Parents don't think kid is emotionally ready to have the death talk. So they spin a story about grandpa having to move away, and how grandpa loves his grandkid very much, but won't be able to visit anymore. And let's say you're over visiting your friend, and their kid walks up to you and says "my grandpa had to move far away and I miss him... do you know why he can't visit me?" You know that your friend's father died recently. If your answer isn't "well, what did your parents say?" followed by affirming whatever the answer is, you've probably done a bit of harm to that child's emotional well being, and likely have introduced some trust issues between the child and parents. What right do you have to do that? I would not be surprised if your friend stops inviting you over after that.
Don't get me wrong; I think many decisions parents make for their kids probably aren't the best ones. There's no authoritative parenting handbook, and most parents do the best they can. But it is not anyone else's place to "correct" someone's parenting decisions, outside of active harm and neglect. (And no, telling a lie about Santa Claus or death does not clear that bar.)
[0] Personally I'm not a big fan of it myself; while Santa Claus can be a useful tool to help a child's imagination develop, I really dislike how tied Christmas has become to consumer culture and materialism.
You may not see the useful function of the Santa Claus fantasy[0], but it is not your (or my) place to decide that for a child or their parents.
Let's try with something a bit less trivial, something that my young nephew had to deal with not too long ago: death. One day kid realizes that grandpa hasn't visited in a long while, and ask parent what's up. Parents don't think kid is emotionally ready to have the death talk. So they spin a story about grandpa having to move away, and how grandpa loves his grandkid very much, but won't be able to visit anymore. And let's say you're over visiting your friend, and their kid walks up to you and says "my grandpa had to move far away and I miss him... do you know why he can't visit me?" You know that your friend's father died recently. If your answer isn't "well, what did your parents say?" followed by affirming whatever the answer is, you've probably done a bit of harm to that child's emotional well being, and likely have introduced some trust issues between the child and parents. What right do you have to do that? I would not be surprised if your friend stops inviting you over after that.
Don't get me wrong; I think many decisions parents make for their kids probably aren't the best ones. There's no authoritative parenting handbook, and most parents do the best they can. But it is not anyone else's place to "correct" someone's parenting decisions, outside of active harm and neglect. (And no, telling a lie about Santa Claus or death does not clear that bar.)
[0] Personally I'm not a big fan of it myself; while Santa Claus can be a useful tool to help a child's imagination develop, I really dislike how tied Christmas has become to consumer culture and materialism.
> Maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky in who I associate with, but no-one I would consider a potential "collaborator" (either in professional or personal life) would ever demand I be incorrect about something to suit their ideals.
I find that very hard to believe. To be correct you not only need to be able to say carefully thought-out, nuanced things; you also need to be able to speculate wildly, to take half-baked ideas where they might lead. But the half-baked version of some important truths probably sounds exactly like the most offensively ignorant notions you could think of.
I find that very hard to believe. To be correct you not only need to be able to say carefully thought-out, nuanced things; you also need to be able to speculate wildly, to take half-baked ideas where they might lead. But the half-baked version of some important truths probably sounds exactly like the most offensively ignorant notions you could think of.
> the half-baked version of some important truths probably sounds exactly like the most offensively ignorant notions you could think of.
And good people are the ones who won't punish you for that. I'd agree an entire social group being this open minded seems unlikely in 2021, but GP may just have really effective filter bubble.
And good people are the ones who won't punish you for that. I'd agree an entire social group being this open minded seems unlikely in 2021, but GP may just have really effective filter bubble.
And I guess part of my question was that what you said (pretty close to my own understanding of the definitions) is predicated on piercing the veil of intent.
Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us.
And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information.
Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us.
And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information.
The answer, then, is to not try to judge people you don't know.
If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them?
If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them?
Who said anything about destroy?
Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood.
And that's a pretty important distinction.
Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood.
And that's a pretty important distinction.
> Who said anything about destroy?
Some jerk named Twitter is my understanding.
> Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood.
I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This sorts itself out with any kind of long-term relationship because then you get to know them well enough to tell whether or not they're an ass.
But the first time you meet someone, it's prisoner's dilemma. Everybody defaulting to defect because you're afraid the other guy might be doing the same thing is not going to end well.
See also superrationality etc.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
Some jerk named Twitter is my understanding.
> Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood.
I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This sorts itself out with any kind of long-term relationship because then you get to know them well enough to tell whether or not they're an ass.
But the first time you meet someone, it's prisoner's dilemma. Everybody defaulting to defect because you're afraid the other guy might be doing the same thing is not going to end well.
See also superrationality etc.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
[deleted]
Not to derail the conversation but I find it amusing to put sexual harassment in the same sentence as not paying rent
I find it amusing that I can't tell whether you mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent or not paying rent is dramatically more serious than sexual harassment.
Both examples - really all of the examples other than "selling drugs to children", which is from Breaking Bad - are taken from real-world conversations with people that basically said "What a jerk!" The person complaining about their non-paying tenant basically accepts sexual harassment as how the world works. The person (people really, it's a composite of a half-dozen or so conversations) complaining about the sexual harassers would likely find nothing wrong with a tenant skipping out on rent. Both are women, though a generation apart.
Both examples - really all of the examples other than "selling drugs to children", which is from Breaking Bad - are taken from real-world conversations with people that basically said "What a jerk!" The person complaining about their non-paying tenant basically accepts sexual harassment as how the world works. The person (people really, it's a composite of a half-dozen or so conversations) complaining about the sexual harassers would likely find nothing wrong with a tenant skipping out on rent. Both are women, though a generation apart.
not worth getting into the nitty gritty but I'll just say that I mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent
And this is why nothing can ever be safely said on internet without putting huge disclaimers everywhere.
"/!\ I do not mean to liken sexual harassment to rent default /!\".
"/!\ I do not mean to liken sexual harassment to rent default /!\".
Yeah I mean, it's not exactly a huge leap of logic based on reading the post. If it's a misunderstanding, that's just one of the perils of written communication, and this gives the author a chance to reply. The societal role of rent/landlords is an active political issue, far from consensus, so it's not just a nitpick to jump in on the implication. Noone is being cancelled
Some people roll that way. Their childhood (or genes) gave them a personality that enjoys conflict, or that only feels good about themselves if someone else is feeling bad, or enjoys hurting people.
It's most clearly visible in griefers in online games, because the social consequences of griefing are minimal. Some people are just plain nasty.
But I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's ridiculous that it's been interpreted this way.
It's most clearly visible in griefers in online games, because the social consequences of griefing are minimal. Some people are just plain nasty.
But I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's ridiculous that it's been interpreted this way.
making oneself likeable to people one doesn't find particularly likeable themselves is a lot of work, the people who are labeled neurotypical are often jerks to the people who are labeled neuroatypical so why not use one's gifts as a neuroatypical person to be unlikable in return.
on edit: explanatory, not recommending
on edit: explanatory, not recommending
yakaccount4(2)
Or even being aware of it?
[deleted]
[deleted]
One is a personality trait and the other is an anatomical or physiological deviation from normal human development.
Intent.
As a neurodivergent person, intent is the most frequent source of conflict for me. Where I mean well but say the wrong thing almost always sits at the bottom of the well of what goes wrong between me and my people I care about. Intent isn’t enough. Listening, caring, and having intuition for what people need is a much larger task than abstract care and empathy.
>thoughtless / mean / an ass
This is precisely what people with autism tend to be like because of the difficulty people with autism have empathizing with others and seeing things from other people's points of view.
This is precisely what people with autism tend to be like because of the difficulty people with autism have empathizing with others and seeing things from other people's points of view.
There's a difference between your perception of someone and what they are actually like.
The asshole is thoughtless because they believe others to be less important than themselves. The person with autism is (may be) thoughtless because their brain isn't wired to be thoughtful. Or they actually are thoughtful, but don't know how to express it in a way that others can understand.
The asshole is thoughtless because they believe others to be less important than themselves. The person with autism is (may be) thoughtless because their brain isn't wired to be thoughtful. Or they actually are thoughtful, but don't know how to express it in a way that others can understand.
I know a lot of autistic people and they're all scrupulously kind and emotionally intelligent.
The idea that autistic people are assholes is an artifact of every other gamer on the internet self diagnosing themselves with aspergers in the 00s and then using that as an excuse to be un-introspectively cruel to each other.
The idea that autistic people are assholes is an artifact of every other gamer on the internet self diagnosing themselves with aspergers in the 00s and then using that as an excuse to be un-introspectively cruel to each other.
Diagnosed asperg here; would probably be autistic if I got diagnosed today.
If I appear scrupulously kind to you, it is because I am compensating. If I appear emotionally intelligent to you, it is because I had to learn what is literally instinct to most people. At least for me, I am able to compensate effectively and pass in most social situations, but it is exhausting.
When I read RMS's writing that lead to the conflict in question, it struck me as an entirely reasonable piece. When I read the responses to it, the message I got, loud and clear, was "my thought patterns are not welcome here"
If I appear scrupulously kind to you, it is because I am compensating. If I appear emotionally intelligent to you, it is because I had to learn what is literally instinct to most people. At least for me, I am able to compensate effectively and pass in most social situations, but it is exhausting.
When I read RMS's writing that lead to the conflict in question, it struck me as an entirely reasonable piece. When I read the responses to it, the message I got, loud and clear, was "my thought patterns are not welcome here"
Not to be like a patronizing son of a bitch here but:
that you choose to be kind does not make you less kind. that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real. that you willingly exhaust yourself exercising those skills is absolutely the opposite of being an asshole.
that you choose to be kind does not make you less kind. that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real. that you willingly exhaust yourself exercising those skills is absolutely the opposite of being an asshole.
As I said, I can pass. My point is that other people making me put in the work to pass are being assholes. The irony of them doing so in the name of diversity and inclusion is not lost on me.
> that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real.
That is a rather technical statement, that would be dependent on exactly what you mean by "emotional intelligence". Relying on general intelligence to do tasks that most people accomplish with more specialized brain power is certainly different, regardless of if you want to classify it as emotional intelligence or not.
> that your emotional intelligence was learned rather than instinctual does not make it less real.
That is a rather technical statement, that would be dependent on exactly what you mean by "emotional intelligence". Relying on general intelligence to do tasks that most people accomplish with more specialized brain power is certainly different, regardless of if you want to classify it as emotional intelligence or not.
Word for word, what you said here is extremely valuable to me. I hope that this isn’t seen as the typical guideline-breaking +1.
Sometimes I resent the patchy compensation mechanisms I’ve built up. It’s almost impossible to explain the frustration, the exhaustion, of choosing to be kind in a fashion that differs from my own understanding of kindness.
I am inherently kind, and I don’t have to choose that. I am confident in that statement. What I do have to force is mapping my default expression of kindness to the norms that friends, family, and acquaintances will understand. This is so important, because failing to do so means pushing all those people away. I feel like I can never let my guard down.
Then I remember to stop talking about myself; cue flash of (rational) anxiety; catch myself from a mental break; go and take a 50 minute long shower.
I’m so thankful for the people that give me a chance to reset, learn, and grow from these iterations.
Sometimes I resent the patchy compensation mechanisms I’ve built up. It’s almost impossible to explain the frustration, the exhaustion, of choosing to be kind in a fashion that differs from my own understanding of kindness.
I am inherently kind, and I don’t have to choose that. I am confident in that statement. What I do have to force is mapping my default expression of kindness to the norms that friends, family, and acquaintances will understand. This is so important, because failing to do so means pushing all those people away. I feel like I can never let my guard down.
Then I remember to stop talking about myself; cue flash of (rational) anxiety; catch myself from a mental break; go and take a 50 minute long shower.
I’m so thankful for the people that give me a chance to reset, learn, and grow from these iterations.
And god, it's so exhausting.
I have a generic model and I develop ones for individual people too, what one key find normal another will find distressing - and none of it makes any sense to me at all.
I have a generic model and I develop ones for individual people too, what one key find normal another will find distressing - and none of it makes any sense to me at all.
I would say the point is that it's extremely easy to unwillingly appear as an asshole if you have to put an extraordinary amount of effort into not appearing as one just because you don't operate based on the same social constructs as most of other people do by default.
The current push-back isn't about that conflict. (If we're talking about the same conflict, I agree with your assessment.) It's about everything else.
So much this. Thanks for putting it in words better than I would have
Autism is very different for everyone who has it. No one is saying that autistic people are assholes, but that stallman may not see or understand how his comments are taken or why people will get upset when the comment is factually correct.
Speaking as an autistic person, that really does not matter. Even though I don't believe in free will, I do believe that a functioning society requires people with power (like RMS, in his capacity as a free software leader) to be held responsible for the harm they cause regardless of how neurodivergent they are.
What about all the other people who were excluded from the movement because RMS was an ass? A common human fallacy is to overindex on the contributions of assholes, while ignoring the potential contributions of those who were excluded by their actions.
What about all the other people who were excluded from the movement because RMS was an ass? A common human fallacy is to overindex on the contributions of assholes, while ignoring the potential contributions of those who were excluded by their actions.
How does one accurately quantify hypothetical contributions by people who may or may not exist?
Most things in life aren't quantifiable, unfortunately. In our field we're spoiled by how many things can be reduced to numbers, but when it comes to interactions between humans it's essentially impossible. So instead, we have to use subjective evaluations.
My subjective evaluation, having met RMS in person and looked at the consistent patterns in his behavior, is that he is "below replacement value" -- he has overall caused far more harm than the average person in his position would have.
My subjective evaluation, having met RMS in person and looked at the consistent patterns in his behavior, is that he is "below replacement value" -- he has overall caused far more harm than the average person in his position would have.
Thank you for the clarification. Please understand that I don't mean to be pedantic.
I agree with the sibling that there are many things in life that we just can't reduce to numbers. Sometimes you can't make a decision based on hard, irrefutable data. You just have to go by what you think will or won't happen based on the possible choices.
In this case, though we actually could, if we wanted to, find some data. We could go around and ask a bunch of people if they wanted to get involved with the FSF but didn't, and see how many of those people were turned off by RMS. Another option could be to look at the demographics of people getting involved in the FSF before and after RMS had been outsted, and compare.
None of that is perfect, and especially the second option would only give you a correlation, not necessarily causation. But, again, our data will always be incomplete, and you just have to go with what your experience tells you will or won't happen.
In this case, though we actually could, if we wanted to, find some data. We could go around and ask a bunch of people if they wanted to get involved with the FSF but didn't, and see how many of those people were turned off by RMS. Another option could be to look at the demographics of people getting involved in the FSF before and after RMS had been outsted, and compare.
None of that is perfect, and especially the second option would only give you a correlation, not necessarily causation. But, again, our data will always be incomplete, and you just have to go with what your experience tells you will or won't happen.
Literally:
>>thoughtless / mean / an ass
>This is precisely what people with autism tend to be
>>thoughtless / mean / an ass
>This is precisely what people with autism tend to be
Ah. I did that (self-diagnosing as an aspie). I'm not.
It's not a special preoperty of spectrum people that they have to learn what neuro-whatsit folks know "instinctively"; we all have to learn these things. Socialisation is learned, not instinctive. You don't have to have a disorder to have poor social skills.
It could be that your poor social skills are the result of inadequate experience or training; it might be that you don't care much (not because you don't care about others, but just because the approval of others doesn't matter much to you, and expending energy on gaining that approval is wasted energy).
Not needing the approval of others isn't a disease; it's a mark of psychological health.
It's not a special preoperty of spectrum people that they have to learn what neuro-whatsit folks know "instinctively"; we all have to learn these things. Socialisation is learned, not instinctive. You don't have to have a disorder to have poor social skills.
It could be that your poor social skills are the result of inadequate experience or training; it might be that you don't care much (not because you don't care about others, but just because the approval of others doesn't matter much to you, and expending energy on gaining that approval is wasted energy).
Not needing the approval of others isn't a disease; it's a mark of psychological health.
One is someone with a diagnosed mental health disorder(s), and one is just that: an ass.
Specifically in the case of employment I'm all for erring on the side of asking employers to be as accommodating as possible. But there are cases where someone's disabilities/attributes reasonably restrict what roles they can perform.
For example, airlines don't employ pilots with extremely poor vision or flight attendants who are too large to fit through the cabin. Someone who relies on a wheelchair may have difficulty becoming a firefighter or a first responder and someone with Tourette's syndrome might have difficulty getting a job as a spokesperson or announcer.
My understanding is that the above constraints are not illegal discrimination (in the US) because the disability/attribute impacts that person's ability to successfully perform key job functions. Maybe extreme PC-warriors take issue with that, but I think most people would agree that these are reasonable constraints.
With respect to neurodivergence it seems dependent on whether it impacts someone's ability to perform their core job functions. As per above we should ask employers should be as accommodating as possible, so I believe an errant joke or comment shouldn't result in anyone being "canceled". But if someone is chronically incapable of processing social cues and/or has trouble interacting with coworkers or customers without triggering HR complaints then they may need to find a different role that doesn't require as much interpersonal interaction. That's unfortunate for the person in question but it doesn't seem any more discriminatory than an airline reassigning a pilot whose vision is failing.
For example, airlines don't employ pilots with extremely poor vision or flight attendants who are too large to fit through the cabin. Someone who relies on a wheelchair may have difficulty becoming a firefighter or a first responder and someone with Tourette's syndrome might have difficulty getting a job as a spokesperson or announcer.
My understanding is that the above constraints are not illegal discrimination (in the US) because the disability/attribute impacts that person's ability to successfully perform key job functions. Maybe extreme PC-warriors take issue with that, but I think most people would agree that these are reasonable constraints.
With respect to neurodivergence it seems dependent on whether it impacts someone's ability to perform their core job functions. As per above we should ask employers should be as accommodating as possible, so I believe an errant joke or comment shouldn't result in anyone being "canceled". But if someone is chronically incapable of processing social cues and/or has trouble interacting with coworkers or customers without triggering HR complaints then they may need to find a different role that doesn't require as much interpersonal interaction. That's unfortunate for the person in question but it doesn't seem any more discriminatory than an airline reassigning a pilot whose vision is failing.
> When applied to autistic or neurodivergent individuals, however, PC norms work to disadvantage an already disadvantaged minority against groups that are both larger and often more economically and culturally free.
are you saying that the undergrads that Stallman harassed at MIT are more economically and culturally free than he is? Are you saying that we should give a pass to bad bosses who turn their subordinates lives' into a tower defense game?
are you saying that the undergrads that Stallman harassed at MIT are more economically and culturally free than he is? Are you saying that we should give a pass to bad bosses who turn their subordinates lives' into a tower defense game?
It's the law of maximum outrage. What justifies more third-party outrage victimology? That an ND {of some intersections} was unfairly expected to know the rules, or that a rude {same intersections} was making {some other intersections} uncomfortable.
Harsh truth, but an easy rule for NDs to follow. Anything you say in public will be judged for its potential. If someone can get points for making it sound bad, they will.
Harsh truth, but an easy rule for NDs to follow. Anything you say in public will be judged for its potential. If someone can get points for making it sound bad, they will.
This is honestly such a disappointment. I used to appreciate your thoughts on a lot of issues and particularly loved that you were in the intersection of haskell and harry potter fanfic.
Venkatesh Rao is generally contentless and writes long winded tracts that don't actually make any kind of coherent argument for what they're saying.
Do you really think Stallman's long history of sexual harassment is because he was too gosh-darned oblivious to realize he shouldn't be doing that? This isn't exactly "Oh he maintained eye-contact for half a second too long and the thought police are after him" territory jfc.
Venkatesh Rao is generally contentless and writes long winded tracts that don't actually make any kind of coherent argument for what they're saying.
Do you really think Stallman's long history of sexual harassment is because he was too gosh-darned oblivious to realize he shouldn't be doing that? This isn't exactly "Oh he maintained eye-contact for half a second too long and the thought police are after him" territory jfc.
The article mentions the Damore incident but doesn't capture the essence of the war. It wrongly draws many self-aware groups whereas it's really two, marxists and lulzites, fighting a war for territory on top of everyone's homes, randomly causing a bit of allegiance to whoever was winning in their area.
Gamers aren't a coherent group or right wing in general (think of the ages...) but "their side" (the side trampling on them) is anti-left, so the gamers were lumped together and drawn on the right. The 'Autism Spectrum' is the most "centrist" I've ever seen, but because the left uses them to launch its attacks from they're drawn as 'left territory'.
Specifically, the Neuro-divergent group isn't an active group, kind of by its nature. ND people on the map are more of a victim pool who just get picked on because they're easy to maneuver into mistakes. Like the whole Damore incident was Google saying "Does our HR policy look fat" and only James was tricked into engaging. He was more a convenient scapegoat to hurt to consolidate their power than he was an ideological enemy.
Certain groups have all-or-nothing ideological traps laying around everywhere and I think it's that these groups, like armies using landmines in areas with children, are especially harmful to societal non-combatants.
Gamers aren't a coherent group or right wing in general (think of the ages...) but "their side" (the side trampling on them) is anti-left, so the gamers were lumped together and drawn on the right. The 'Autism Spectrum' is the most "centrist" I've ever seen, but because the left uses them to launch its attacks from they're drawn as 'left territory'.
Specifically, the Neuro-divergent group isn't an active group, kind of by its nature. ND people on the map are more of a victim pool who just get picked on because they're easy to maneuver into mistakes. Like the whole Damore incident was Google saying "Does our HR policy look fat" and only James was tricked into engaging. He was more a convenient scapegoat to hurt to consolidate their power than he was an ideological enemy.
Certain groups have all-or-nothing ideological traps laying around everywhere and I think it's that these groups, like armies using landmines in areas with children, are especially harmful to societal non-combatants.
The thing to note is that the worldview of social justice advocates is not "advocate for all oppressed groups", it's "advocate for all oppressed groups up to intersectionality". At least in America, we used to go through phases of, say, black power groups being kinda sexist, and women's liberation movements being hella racist. This poses a unique opportunity for people who oppose both: just use one to harm the other. For example, the founder of Planned Parenthood was willing to advocate for themselves in the language of eugenics, so if you hate abortion rights, you just constantly bring up all the awful things they said about black people. There's nothing stopping you from switching tactics a day later and complaining about, say, a BLM riot that winds up shutting down a Planned Parenthood clinic.
The social justice advocate's response to that is intersectionality: a defense mechanism of not engaging in advocacy that would benefit one oppressed group at the expense of another. They're not always great at this - some social conflicts are just difficult to actually make judgments on (e.g. Israel/Palestine). The thing is, though - I doubt "drop the autistics" is going to pick up steam in social justice circles. Autism, and neurodivergence in general, tracks very well with queer sexual orientations and gender identities. Social mores intended to enforce rigid gender roles and heteronormativity simply don't work on people who can't parse them. (The contrapositive of this is why there's a huge push for non-gendered children's toys.) Ergo, it's very unlikely that you'd see the social justice left tear itself apart like this, and more likely that you'd see people arguing that "drop the autistics" is bullshit.
I'm also going to point out that, as an autistic person myself, the stricter speech rules of the social justice left aren't terribly difficult to parse. The prior eras of social mores were far stricter because we didn't see them as coercive and thus didn't question their power, and it's somewhat troubling that people don't view it as an improvement from what we had before. It's sort of like how people coming from proprietary software sometimes argue that the GPL is non-free because it has some restrictions that don't conform to the unstated mores of proprietary licensing. Much of the reaction people have to these speech rules comes from two different places:
1. The people reacting to these rules are neurotypical, and used to invisible speech rules enforced by people with a common cultural heritage such that they wouldn't disagree on their unstated rules.
2. Many people in the social justice community are autistic (see above) and also had a hand in writing the rules. Of course, if people who can't parse social cues write the rules of a society, those rules are going to be explicitly stated rather than inferred.
In other words, the problem isn't that the social justice left is going to throw out neurodivergent people, it's that the social justice left is autistic, in cultural control, and writing the new rules of society in a way neurotypicals don't understand.
(Side note: #9 is a conflict that's been brewing in the back of my head for a while now. I love P2P tech but think the entirety of cryptocurrency has been a dead-end full of scams.)
The social justice advocate's response to that is intersectionality: a defense mechanism of not engaging in advocacy that would benefit one oppressed group at the expense of another. They're not always great at this - some social conflicts are just difficult to actually make judgments on (e.g. Israel/Palestine). The thing is, though - I doubt "drop the autistics" is going to pick up steam in social justice circles. Autism, and neurodivergence in general, tracks very well with queer sexual orientations and gender identities. Social mores intended to enforce rigid gender roles and heteronormativity simply don't work on people who can't parse them. (The contrapositive of this is why there's a huge push for non-gendered children's toys.) Ergo, it's very unlikely that you'd see the social justice left tear itself apart like this, and more likely that you'd see people arguing that "drop the autistics" is bullshit.
I'm also going to point out that, as an autistic person myself, the stricter speech rules of the social justice left aren't terribly difficult to parse. The prior eras of social mores were far stricter because we didn't see them as coercive and thus didn't question their power, and it's somewhat troubling that people don't view it as an improvement from what we had before. It's sort of like how people coming from proprietary software sometimes argue that the GPL is non-free because it has some restrictions that don't conform to the unstated mores of proprietary licensing. Much of the reaction people have to these speech rules comes from two different places:
1. The people reacting to these rules are neurotypical, and used to invisible speech rules enforced by people with a common cultural heritage such that they wouldn't disagree on their unstated rules.
2. Many people in the social justice community are autistic (see above) and also had a hand in writing the rules. Of course, if people who can't parse social cues write the rules of a society, those rules are going to be explicitly stated rather than inferred.
In other words, the problem isn't that the social justice left is going to throw out neurodivergent people, it's that the social justice left is autistic, in cultural control, and writing the new rules of society in a way neurotypicals don't understand.
(Side note: #9 is a conflict that's been brewing in the back of my head for a while now. I love P2P tech but think the entirety of cryptocurrency has been a dead-end full of scams.)
> 1. The people reacting to these rules are neurotypical
How do you know that everyone who disagrees with the "speech rules" of the "social justice left" is "neurotypical"?
I think "aneurotypical" people (whether ADHD or ASD or whatever) are just as capable of having a wide variety of different political views as "neurotypical" people are. Take any current political or social question, you are going to have a wide diversity of opinion about it, and I don't see why people with ASD/ADHD/etc would have any less viewpoint diversity than society as a whole does. (If anything, people with ASD might have more viewpoint diversity than average, due to putting less value on social conformity leading to a greater willingness to consider and even espouse unpopular opinions.)
> it's that the social justice left is autistic
I really doubt that. Possibly, people with ASD are over-represented on the "social justice left". (I've heard the same claim made about the "alt-right" – although the two claims are not mutually exclusive). But I think the clear majority people on the "social justice left" don't have ASD, and conversely a lot of people with ASD don't identify with the "social justice left".
How do you know that everyone who disagrees with the "speech rules" of the "social justice left" is "neurotypical"?
I think "aneurotypical" people (whether ADHD or ASD or whatever) are just as capable of having a wide variety of different political views as "neurotypical" people are. Take any current political or social question, you are going to have a wide diversity of opinion about it, and I don't see why people with ASD/ADHD/etc would have any less viewpoint diversity than society as a whole does. (If anything, people with ASD might have more viewpoint diversity than average, due to putting less value on social conformity leading to a greater willingness to consider and even espouse unpopular opinions.)
> it's that the social justice left is autistic
I really doubt that. Possibly, people with ASD are over-represented on the "social justice left". (I've heard the same claim made about the "alt-right" – although the two claims are not mutually exclusive). But I think the clear majority people on the "social justice left" don't have ASD, and conversely a lot of people with ASD don't identify with the "social justice left".
Some of this is good but I don't understand what China on the map has to do with anything. It also isn't mentioned in the article at all...
I'm pretty sure China cares little about American political correctness wars.
I'm pretty sure China cares little about American political correctness wars.
China likes to portray America as a racist country (see the fourth installment of the comically overt propaganda series Ip Man on Netflix), but beyond that I’m not sure.
Its important to emphasis one thing about Ribbonfarm. The author wholly supports for Hindu caste system. This is where his arguments come from.
Do you have a source for this?
One source i can show is from his blog post https://web.archive.org/web/20210202083240/https://www.ribbo...
> As thoughtless teenagers, we made crude SC/ST jokes. Here’s one: at a urinal in a government recruitment center, there is a line marked on the wall with the note, “if you can pee above this line, you get the job.”
This was unnecessary considering the dalits commiting sucide after joining IIT or other elite colleges due to harrasment from the Brahmins community students. Even if you give the benefit of doubt on this one simply as telling a story, look for the next quote.
> .. but I am enough of a free-speecher to acknowledge that it has a right to
This... This is the mindset of the upper caste Brahmins. They don't want the reservations based on caste but at the same time they don't want it to go away, simply because it provides birth entitlement at the cost of the other castes.
It does not matter he is an atheist. Even the founder of Hindutva philosophy is an atheist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar whom these modern educated caste supporting intellectuals admire.
That blog post is quite long, If you read the entire post you get the impression that after all caste system is not bad, just the implementation had gone wrong. In fact any one who says caste is not that bad especially in USA, it is very likely they are from upper caste brahmin community.
> As thoughtless teenagers, we made crude SC/ST jokes. Here’s one: at a urinal in a government recruitment center, there is a line marked on the wall with the note, “if you can pee above this line, you get the job.”
This was unnecessary considering the dalits commiting sucide after joining IIT or other elite colleges due to harrasment from the Brahmins community students. Even if you give the benefit of doubt on this one simply as telling a story, look for the next quote.
> .. but I am enough of a free-speecher to acknowledge that it has a right to
This... This is the mindset of the upper caste Brahmins. They don't want the reservations based on caste but at the same time they don't want it to go away, simply because it provides birth entitlement at the cost of the other castes.
It does not matter he is an atheist. Even the founder of Hindutva philosophy is an atheist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar whom these modern educated caste supporting intellectuals admire.
That blog post is quite long, If you read the entire post you get the impression that after all caste system is not bad, just the implementation had gone wrong. In fact any one who says caste is not that bad especially in USA, it is very likely they are from upper caste brahmin community.
It's not just neurodivergence, but its that he recognizes where he jabs people and pretty much admits he doesn't care. I once had this conversation about with with ESR and I remember him saying "RMS doesn't care about the 'social overhead' of most person to person interactions" and so he kind of does his own normative preferences, thinking that because he finds them ideal, that others shouldn't be offended....but then he seems offended by an infinitely long list of things, and his intellect seems to treat this asymmetry as one big blind spot.
I've listened to him be rude to former co-workers (one seemingly on the basis that she was a woman in a technical role) and an absolute one man clown rodeo at various trade show events.
His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.
I've listened to him be rude to former co-workers (one seemingly on the basis that she was a woman in a technical role) and an absolute one man clown rodeo at various trade show events.
His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.
> It's not just neurodivergence, but its that he recognizes where he jabs people and pretty much admits he doesn't care.
This is the thing for me. Being neuroatypical and unable to follow typical social cues, or having trouble expressing thoughtfulness or care is just a fact of life. But not being thoughtful and not caring is a choice.
This is the thing for me. Being neuroatypical and unable to follow typical social cues, or having trouble expressing thoughtfulness or care is just a fact of life. But not being thoughtful and not caring is a choice.
> But not being thoughtful and not caring is a choice.
Not if you’re neurodivergent. I think the challenge is knowing who has different brain chemistry and who has regular chemistry and is choosing.
Not if you’re neurodivergent. I think the challenge is knowing who has different brain chemistry and who has regular chemistry and is choosing.
Many people who have worked directly with RMS for many years say he knows, he understands, but he doesn't care.
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
>neuroatypical
It feels wrong to me to squeeze this tiny little "a" in between the words 'neuro' and 'typical' that flips the combined word's meaning around. The "a" usually goes at the front of a word so that you can tell immediately that it is being negated. I know that "a" is at the front of 'typical' but that's precisely the rub since it is actually in hiding instead of at the front of the combined word.
It feels wrong to me to squeeze this tiny little "a" in between the words 'neuro' and 'typical' that flips the combined word's meaning around. The "a" usually goes at the front of a word so that you can tell immediately that it is being negated. I know that "a" is at the front of 'typical' but that's precisely the rub since it is actually in hiding instead of at the front of the combined word.
I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history.
"I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time"
I do. How the hell do you think I figured it out for RMS? That same critical filtering can happen not just across time, but across various axes of context.
I didn't say that he's "irredeemable" but that the constant hagiographic/endless forgiveness for his chronic boorishness by his acolytes is annoying and serves no benefit.
I do. How the hell do you think I figured it out for RMS? That same critical filtering can happen not just across time, but across various axes of context.
I didn't say that he's "irredeemable" but that the constant hagiographic/endless forgiveness for his chronic boorishness by his acolytes is annoying and serves no benefit.
> the constant hagiographic/endless forgiveness for his chronic boorishness by his acolytes is annoying and serves no benefit.
Most relevant is that it deprives him of useful feedback neurodivergent people can actually use to better communicate with neurotypical colleagues.
Most relevant is that it deprives him of useful feedback neurodivergent people can actually use to better communicate with neurotypical colleagues.
Karl Marx and his letter to Engels regarding Lasalle comes to mind, as an example.
http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.html
http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.html
> I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history.
This is illegible and does not seem to follow from the rest of this thread. I'm missing where the GP made a statement about a person's "philosophical brilliance." Did I miss something, or is this meant to infer something else?
This is illegible and does not seem to follow from the rest of this thread. I'm missing where the GP made a statement about a person's "philosophical brilliance." Did I miss something, or is this meant to infer something else?
I believed I was responding to a comment by the user "zeruch". I may not be using this comment section correctly.
>His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.
>His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.
> His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.
Sounds a bit like Diogenes the Cynic.
Sounds a bit like Diogenes the Cynic.
Glad I'm not the only one that thought this.
Stallman seems to be in a similar vein as many of the 'great philosophers'. In that his ideas are challenging and difficult, much like himself. Making the man not one that you like all that much. The phenomenon reminds me of an often misinterpreted Edmond de Goncourt quote:
"Almost no one loves the genius until he or she is dead. But then we do, because now life is better."
The quote is not talking about how the genius made our lives better through their work/effort. Rather, how they were so insufferable.
As to Stallman, only time will tell if he will join the Great Conversation as a loud voice or not.
Stallman seems to be in a similar vein as many of the 'great philosophers'. In that his ideas are challenging and difficult, much like himself. Making the man not one that you like all that much. The phenomenon reminds me of an often misinterpreted Edmond de Goncourt quote:
"Almost no one loves the genius until he or she is dead. But then we do, because now life is better."
The quote is not talking about how the genius made our lives better through their work/effort. Rather, how they were so insufferable.
As to Stallman, only time will tell if he will join the Great Conversation as a loud voice or not.
This checks out. I work with somebody on the spectrum and he's one of the kindest, most thoughtful people I've ever worked with. He doesn't always pick up on cues (though he is pretty good at it at this point), but he asks questions when he's not sure and just generally goes to great lengths to be considerate. Even more so than many people who aren't on the spectrum, in fact.
> I've listened to him be rude to former co-workers (one seemingly on the basis that she was a woman in a technical role)
Care to back that accusation up with anything?
Care to back that accusation up with anything?
It was a direct statement he made to a colleague when we both were at VA Research and he berated her for some item related to how we were hosting the FSF at the time. That's where I first saw that he is gracious when it suits him and is otherwise generally a boor. He's done nothing since to change that view.
I also observed him trying to dress people down ad nauseum for a litany of inanities: telling me and several other staff from VA when it changed from VA Research to VA Linus that it should be "VA GNU/Linux" while the rest of us were trying to have a conversation with other people. Or the time he could barely control his irritation at an awards event when Linus Torvalds' toddler daughter upstaged him at an awards presentation. Or when he seemed clueless and/or ambivalent about any number of things that other people felt.
Yes, I have a strong negative opinion about RMS. No, it is not based on tertiary opinions, but direct or near-line observations.
I also observed him trying to dress people down ad nauseum for a litany of inanities: telling me and several other staff from VA when it changed from VA Research to VA Linus that it should be "VA GNU/Linux" while the rest of us were trying to have a conversation with other people. Or the time he could barely control his irritation at an awards event when Linus Torvalds' toddler daughter upstaged him at an awards presentation. Or when he seemed clueless and/or ambivalent about any number of things that other people felt.
Yes, I have a strong negative opinion about RMS. No, it is not based on tertiary opinions, but direct or near-line observations.
If someone is consistently failing to do the necessary part of a job, then it doesn't matter why they are consistently failing; they must be asked to step down and not do that job.
One of the responsibilities of anyone in power is to avoid emboldening sexual predators and silencing victims. Anyone in power who does that should be called out; and anyone who continues to do it after being called out should be asked to step down.
Let me start by saying that Stallman's words defending Minsky have absolutely been misinterpreted. He did not say that Guiffre was "entirely willing". And given that the age of consent in most of Europe is 16 or below [1], I think it's hypocritical for so many people to be outraged about Stallman saying maybe 17 isn't so bad.
Nonetheless, his defense of Minsky is still problematic. Why? Because in the hypothetical situation he described, Minsky had sex with Guiffre even though he should have seen red flags. (Don't get distracted here by arguing that Minsky did see red flags and didn't actually sleep with Guiffre. That's not the point: Stallman still defended Minsky as though he had.) By defending Minsky, he was indicating to all future sexual predators, "I will try to find excuses to defend your bad behavior"; and to all future sexual victims, "There is no point in coming forward; I will try to excuse the person who did this to you."
Now maybe Stallman didn't realize that's what he was doing; and maybe the reason he didn't realize it was because his brain is wired differently, which makes it difficult for him somehow. If so, we can cut him some slack personally; but it doesn't change the fact that it's harmful to have him in leadership.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
One of the responsibilities of anyone in power is to avoid emboldening sexual predators and silencing victims. Anyone in power who does that should be called out; and anyone who continues to do it after being called out should be asked to step down.
Let me start by saying that Stallman's words defending Minsky have absolutely been misinterpreted. He did not say that Guiffre was "entirely willing". And given that the age of consent in most of Europe is 16 or below [1], I think it's hypocritical for so many people to be outraged about Stallman saying maybe 17 isn't so bad.
Nonetheless, his defense of Minsky is still problematic. Why? Because in the hypothetical situation he described, Minsky had sex with Guiffre even though he should have seen red flags. (Don't get distracted here by arguing that Minsky did see red flags and didn't actually sleep with Guiffre. That's not the point: Stallman still defended Minsky as though he had.) By defending Minsky, he was indicating to all future sexual predators, "I will try to find excuses to defend your bad behavior"; and to all future sexual victims, "There is no point in coming forward; I will try to excuse the person who did this to you."
Now maybe Stallman didn't realize that's what he was doing; and maybe the reason he didn't realize it was because his brain is wired differently, which makes it difficult for him somehow. If so, we can cut him some slack personally; but it doesn't change the fact that it's harmful to have him in leadership.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
Age of consent is seriously tricky business. And I think that's in part because it's really two things which are muddled together: young people having sex with each other; and older people having sex with younger people.
It is absolutely fine for young people to consent to having sex with other young people. A minimum age makes little sense there. Very young kids do stupid things all the time, including touching each other's genitals. By some definitions, if two toddlers "play doctor", the older one is somehow a criminal. That seems insane. I remember being 14 and doing sexual things with my 15 year old girlfriend. At that point we were both falling foul of the law. But once she turned 16, she was suddenly a pedophile and a stutory rapist because I was only 15? Again, that seems insane.
Then there's the issue of older people having sexual relations with younger people. This is where things become a lot more complex. It's pretty clear that it's inappropriate when authority figures are involved (e.g. teacher and underaged student). But then that can be inappropriate regardless of age. I can't imagine 14 year old me having been sexually interested in anyone over the age of 30, but that seems entirely arbitrary and subject to taste. I can certainly imagine 14 year old me thinking that my sex life wasn't anyone else's business. Some 14 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Yet the former somehow can't consent to anything, but the latter can consent to sex with anyone aged 16-120+?
Age is a pretty good proxy for maturity on a population scale, but it's a really lousy proxy on an individual level. Perhaps we, as a society, would do well to remember that individual differences can be huge, and that consent is more important than merely the age.
It is absolutely fine for young people to consent to having sex with other young people. A minimum age makes little sense there. Very young kids do stupid things all the time, including touching each other's genitals. By some definitions, if two toddlers "play doctor", the older one is somehow a criminal. That seems insane. I remember being 14 and doing sexual things with my 15 year old girlfriend. At that point we were both falling foul of the law. But once she turned 16, she was suddenly a pedophile and a stutory rapist because I was only 15? Again, that seems insane.
Then there's the issue of older people having sexual relations with younger people. This is where things become a lot more complex. It's pretty clear that it's inappropriate when authority figures are involved (e.g. teacher and underaged student). But then that can be inappropriate regardless of age. I can't imagine 14 year old me having been sexually interested in anyone over the age of 30, but that seems entirely arbitrary and subject to taste. I can certainly imagine 14 year old me thinking that my sex life wasn't anyone else's business. Some 14 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Yet the former somehow can't consent to anything, but the latter can consent to sex with anyone aged 16-120+?
Age is a pretty good proxy for maturity on a population scale, but it's a really lousy proxy on an individual level. Perhaps we, as a society, would do well to remember that individual differences can be huge, and that consent is more important than merely the age.
> But once she turned 16, she was suddenly a pedophile and a stutory rapist because I was only 15? Again, that seems insane.
After some high-profile cases (usually involving minorities and disapproving parents), some states in the US have corrected this via "Romeo and Juliet Laws".
(Had to look into this due to having a bit younger girlfriend right around that age)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Julie...
After some high-profile cases (usually involving minorities and disapproving parents), some states in the US have corrected this via "Romeo and Juliet Laws".
(Had to look into this due to having a bit younger girlfriend right around that age)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Julie...
I had the misfortune to let my self get sucked into an argument which required me to comb through the California laws on this topic. The laws seemed to me to be a reasonable attempt at a balance.
> Age of consent is seriously tricky business.
Right, and I carefully worded what I said about it to try to avoid expressing any opinion on the subject. :-)
Right, and I carefully worded what I said about it to try to avoid expressing any opinion on the subject. :-)
Oh I wasn't trying to refute your statement or anything, I was merely trying to expand on the whole Age Of Consent business. Sorry if this came across in that way.
> Nonetheless, his defense of Minsky is still problematic. Why? Because in the hypothetical situation he described, Minsky had sex with Guiffre even though he should have seen red flags. [...] By defending Minsky, he was indicating to all future sexual predators, "I will try to find excuses to defend your bad behavior"; and to all future sexual victims, "There is no point in coming forward; I will try to excuse the person who did this to you."
Yes, exactly.
Pointing out extenuating circumstances of someone's (alleged) bad behavior is necessary and useful. But it should always come second to determining what the person should have done instead, and holding them accountable to push society towards a place where everybody has the responsible behavior by default.
The attitude of "if there's any plausible reason person X might have thought they weren't doing anything wrong, we shouldn't punish them" gives the exact wrong incentives.
Yes, exactly.
Pointing out extenuating circumstances of someone's (alleged) bad behavior is necessary and useful. But it should always come second to determining what the person should have done instead, and holding them accountable to push society towards a place where everybody has the responsible behavior by default.
The attitude of "if there's any plausible reason person X might have thought they weren't doing anything wrong, we shouldn't punish them" gives the exact wrong incentives.
Well put. This is in my eyes the biggest problem with the whole "politically correct" and identity politics movement: it assume the worst of people digressing a chosen subjective universal ideal, in the process singling out lots of individuals despite the self-proclaimed goal of diversity and acceptance. It's pretty warped to demand respect for your own personal difficulties and particularities while bashing others for theirs, or in other words, demand to be treated with respect as a human being while failing to see the human in others.
I think this entire moralistic debate is misguided. Granted, if RMS was indeed autistic, all the more reason to "judge" him more charitably. But even if he wasn't, its doesn't mean that his cancellation - based on things he might have said and, lest we forget, a smear campaign by an internet mob ignited by false accusations - was justified. RMS was one of the founders of the Free Software Movement - that is why he occupied that post at the FSF. Not because he was the epitome of high Christian morals - why would/should that be a job requirement in his line of work? Do you want righteous activists also demand they be "nice guys"? If so, time to start cancelling the very champions of cancel culture as few of them are "nice people" (which, btw, is bound to happen if history is any indication). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too...
Just wondering what the source is for Stallman being autistic? I see people saying he's autistic, and I even see people saying he has called himself "borderline autistic", but that's not quite the same thing as a diagnosis. I don't see a reliable source making that claim; even Wikipedia says nothing about it (except a backstage talk item about there not being any source on the claim).
I admit, the circumstantial evidence is, uhh, indicative, but I don't see it being a matter of public record. Then again, I only did six and a half minutes of internet research, though, and I could be wrong, thus the question mark.
I admit, the circumstantial evidence is, uhh, indicative, but I don't see it being a matter of public record. Then again, I only did six and a half minutes of internet research, though, and I could be wrong, thus the question mark.
> Just wondering what the source is for Stallman being autistic? I see people saying he's autistic, and I even see people saying he has called himself "borderline autistic", but that's not quite the same thing as a diagnosis
If you understand the concept of the broad autism phenotype (BAP), it is hard not to see it in his behaviour. He obviously has autistic traits.
Now, is it BAP (sub-clinical ASD) or is it clinical ASD? Nobody can answer that unless they are actually a qualified diagnostician (psychiatrist/psychologist/etc) personally evaluating him.
But I'm not sure how much that matters. The boundary between BAP and ASD is vague, it varies from clinician to clinician and is changing over time.
If you choose to view things dimensionally [0] rather than categorically, you have "super-neurotypical" people at one extreme, you have "severe ASD" at the other [1]. And somewhere in between the two, you draw a line (the diagnostic cutoff), and say people on one side of the line have "mild ASD" and people on the other side of the line don't have ASD. And the people who are on the "neurotypical" side of the line, but still close to it rather than far away, that's BAP.
And I think the point is that RMS obviously is somewhere near that line, whichever side of it he may belong on. (And as I said, the line doesn't have a single fixed location anyway, he might be on one side given some clinicians' ways of drawing it and on the other given others'.)
[0] I've drawn an oversimplified one-dimensional model here. In reality ASD is a multidimensional construct. But, treating it one-dimensionally is a simplification which aids in explanation
[1] I know some people don't like phrases like "mild ASD" or "severe ASD" (or their close relatives "low functioning" and "high functioning"), but how else do you explain the difference between someone diagnosed with "ASD Level 1 / Level 1 without intellectual or language impairment" and someone else who is diagnosed with "ASD Level 3 / Level 3 with intellectual impairment and language impairment"?
If you understand the concept of the broad autism phenotype (BAP), it is hard not to see it in his behaviour. He obviously has autistic traits.
Now, is it BAP (sub-clinical ASD) or is it clinical ASD? Nobody can answer that unless they are actually a qualified diagnostician (psychiatrist/psychologist/etc) personally evaluating him.
But I'm not sure how much that matters. The boundary between BAP and ASD is vague, it varies from clinician to clinician and is changing over time.
If you choose to view things dimensionally [0] rather than categorically, you have "super-neurotypical" people at one extreme, you have "severe ASD" at the other [1]. And somewhere in between the two, you draw a line (the diagnostic cutoff), and say people on one side of the line have "mild ASD" and people on the other side of the line don't have ASD. And the people who are on the "neurotypical" side of the line, but still close to it rather than far away, that's BAP.
And I think the point is that RMS obviously is somewhere near that line, whichever side of it he may belong on. (And as I said, the line doesn't have a single fixed location anyway, he might be on one side given some clinicians' ways of drawing it and on the other given others'.)
[0] I've drawn an oversimplified one-dimensional model here. In reality ASD is a multidimensional construct. But, treating it one-dimensionally is a simplification which aids in explanation
[1] I know some people don't like phrases like "mild ASD" or "severe ASD" (or their close relatives "low functioning" and "high functioning"), but how else do you explain the difference between someone diagnosed with "ASD Level 1 / Level 1 without intellectual or language impairment" and someone else who is diagnosed with "ASD Level 3 / Level 3 with intellectual impairment and language impairment"?
If the line is that blurry, when do we begin holding people accountable for being apparently deliberately inconsiderate and rude? Most people don't have a problem with social cues, are we to quietly accept abuse and harassment even from people who have been told they're hurting others and don't change?
Do we quietly accept not being listened to by the deaf? Do we quietly accept our visual cues not being correctly interpreted by the blind? Do we quietly accept our grandmothers forgetting our birthdays? Do we quietly accept service animals (well I suppose a lot of people don't)?
But it's okay to treat autistic people as less than human because they are not a politically powerful group. You learn a lot about people from how they treat politically disadvantaged, and we have learned a lot about you.
But it's okay to treat autistic people as less than human because they are not a politically powerful group. You learn a lot about people from how they treat politically disadvantaged, and we have learned a lot about you.
Given what the lengths he went through to create GNU in the 1970s, I’m willing to believe it.
Definitely above the mean drive, resolve, conviction.
There are, at any given time, few people who walk this world rating so highly on these scales.
There are, at any given time, few people who walk this world rating so highly on these scales.
It wasn’t just a few statements. It is a constellation of issues that make him very hard to interact with.
A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years.
A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years.
Again, maybe it was "hard to interact with him" only if one was unwilling to accept his difference?
Just because you accept someone's differences doesn't change that they may, to you, be difficult to interact with. It's saying this is potentially more difficult but because they're a human being deserving of treatment just like you want to be treated, you try to overcome the difficulty. Co-existing with people is difficult in the best of circumstances, pretending like our differences don't exist won't make that any easier.
I also don't really know all that much about Richard Stallman I just don't like the idea that if you accept someone for themselves all the difficulties of social cohesion magically disappear because it's untrue.
I also don't really know all that much about Richard Stallman I just don't like the idea that if you accept someone for themselves all the difficulties of social cohesion magically disappear because it's untrue.
This is just the same excuse as the age old "Boys will be boys" excuse. Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep and general unpleasant person to work with, without there eventually being repercussions.
not really.
'boys will be boys' doesn't assert that 'boys' get away with whatever they want because they are neuro-divergent, it asserts that gender allows for additional privilege.
>Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep
For the sake of argument : what if that person has neurological quirks which disallow 'non-creep' , to use your parlance, behavior?
To take the example even further , it's illegal with fine attached to say curse words on certain beaches in the United States. Is it reasonable to fine an individual with Tourette Syndrome when they scream expletives on such a beach?
'boys will be boys' doesn't assert that 'boys' get away with whatever they want because they are neuro-divergent, it asserts that gender allows for additional privilege.
>Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep
For the sake of argument : what if that person has neurological quirks which disallow 'non-creep' , to use your parlance, behavior?
To take the example even further , it's illegal with fine attached to say curse words on certain beaches in the United States. Is it reasonable to fine an individual with Tourette Syndrome when they scream expletives on such a beach?
Take it to the extreme - murder is illegal; if you kill someone because you're a bad bad person, we jail you. If you kill someone because you're "insane"...we still remove you from society, but you just get treatment instead of punishment. We still consider the act of killing someone unacceptable.
If swearing at the beach is unacceptable, full stop, then it's unacceptable for a person with or without TS. (Personally, that sounds like a dumb law, but what do I know)
If swearing at the beach is unacceptable, full stop, then it's unacceptable for a person with or without TS. (Personally, that sounds like a dumb law, but what do I know)
I think there is a clear distinction. People have a right to live above insane persons freedom. TS people have a right to freedom above people's inconvenience to hear curse words. Law balances these kind of things all the time, that's why we don't slave people when they own money anymore, to put one of many examples.
They're removed from society to protect society from them. However, depriving someone of their liberty is a pretty extreme step to take, and not one which should be taken lightly.
A TS individual for instance may be annoying, however they aren't causing actual physical harm to other people, in the same sense that a murderer might be.
A TS individual for instance may be annoying, however they aren't causing actual physical harm to other people, in the same sense that a murderer might be.
Weirdly I think taking it to the extreme made your point somewhat worse. Something like theft versus kleptomania is just a punishment versus treatment scenario, but I would definitely perceive someone who commits an unprovoked murder to inherently require psychological treatment, even if they don't meet the requirements of an insanity defence.
But I do agree with the idea that letting someone off the hook for all consequences on account of a mental illness isn't viable. That makes things a lot harder for neurodivergent individuals, but that's why we should have extensive support programs and provide resources to help them cope with the expectations of general society.
It's a tricky problem, because to meaningfully distinguish between someone who is mentally incapable of following a law and someone who is capable of doing so but systematically elects not to, you are functionally deciding which humans do and do not have free will on an individual basis. I think most people would believe that either all humans have free will, or no humans have free will, not somewhere in between, so this is a scenario that is uncomfortable to pretty much everyone.
But I do agree with the idea that letting someone off the hook for all consequences on account of a mental illness isn't viable. That makes things a lot harder for neurodivergent individuals, but that's why we should have extensive support programs and provide resources to help them cope with the expectations of general society.
It's a tricky problem, because to meaningfully distinguish between someone who is mentally incapable of following a law and someone who is capable of doing so but systematically elects not to, you are functionally deciding which humans do and do not have free will on an individual basis. I think most people would believe that either all humans have free will, or no humans have free will, not somewhere in between, so this is a scenario that is uncomfortable to pretty much everyone.
"Boys will be boys" was usually said when boys were doing something asinine. I've never heard someone frame it the way you did.
I am not sure if you or a lot of the posters here really understand autism . This is someone with an extremely low emotional iq and an extreme emotional difference.
Maybe someone with an extremely low emotional IQ should not be the public face of an activism organization whose primariy job is to persuade the public, then?
A lot of the internal-to-the-free-software-community frustration with RMS was how he had basically stopped contributing code to GNU but still felt entitled to overrule maintainers. He is a talented coder! He could have continued to use his skills to write free software and delegated the work of being the face of the movement to others. He could have listened when people suggested to him that he'd be of greater service to the movement that way. He didn't do any of that.
Not everyone is ideally suited for every role. That's part of being understanding of neurodivergence.
A lot of the internal-to-the-free-software-community frustration with RMS was how he had basically stopped contributing code to GNU but still felt entitled to overrule maintainers. He is a talented coder! He could have continued to use his skills to write free software and delegated the work of being the face of the movement to others. He could have listened when people suggested to him that he'd be of greater service to the movement that way. He didn't do any of that.
Not everyone is ideally suited for every role. That's part of being understanding of neurodivergence.
Sounds like stereotypical manager that used to code, stopped doing and slowly forgot how it is done, but still think it is good idea to talk about it constantly.
"Boys will be boys" was (and still is) a phrase used by most to describe to idiotic stuff boys do like firing roman candles at each other or brothers wrestling with each other and breaking a lamp in the process. How it got twisted to mean that people using it are excusing sexual harassment and assault is beyond me, other than being an obvious attempt by the woke to subvert a common phrase for political purposes.
> a creep and general unpleasant person to work with
In my experience, the same sort of people who crusade against the Richard Stallmans of the world are the creepiest and by far most unpleasant to work with, yet they themselves are constantly being celebrated, uplifted, and raised into positions of real power and real harm.
In my experience, the same sort of people who crusade against the Richard Stallmans of the world are the creepiest and by far most unpleasant to work with, yet they themselves are constantly being celebrated, uplifted, and raised into positions of real power and real harm.
It sucks that this couldn't have been addressed earlier. Accounts generally indicate that people were aware.
Unfortunately, when someone is in a position of power, often the only recourse is the sword of Damocles. This is especially difficult for people who become relevant by leading a movement rather than rising through the ranks. But that means that there is a natural tension between social mobility and a culture of accountability, which is likely the source of a lot of dissatisfaction in society.
Unfortunately, when someone is in a position of power, often the only recourse is the sword of Damocles. This is especially difficult for people who become relevant by leading a movement rather than rising through the ranks. But that means that there is a natural tension between social mobility and a culture of accountability, which is likely the source of a lot of dissatisfaction in society.
Okay. I think your statements indicate you are a jerk.
Do I now suddenly get to punish you? Do I get to go to your boss and try to get him to fire you?
See the problem?
Do I now suddenly get to punish you? Do I get to go to your boss and try to get him to fire you?
See the problem?
I mean... yes? That's exactly what you do? The boss is presumably a rational human being and can decide if your complaints have merit or not.
If you personally are in a position to punish someone who you believe is a jerk, then yeah, you'll probably punish them, because that's just how social interaction works.
If you personally are in a position to punish someone who you believe is a jerk, then yeah, you'll probably punish them, because that's just how social interaction works.
I think in practice the boss would primarily evaluate the negative impact (or the risk) of the public reaction against the company/organisation versus the positive impact the controversial person brings through the merits of their work. It would be a business decision.
I don't even think we should be "advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people".
We should just stop using our prejudice to misinterpret statements, and we should stop putting words in other people's mouths.
Autistic people (who usually talk in a very literal way) would be benefited by this change as a byproduct, but this principle should apply to everyone, not only to neurodivergent people.
Is what the person said technically correct? Yes or no. That's all that matters.
We should just stop using our prejudice to misinterpret statements, and we should stop putting words in other people's mouths.
Autistic people (who usually talk in a very literal way) would be benefited by this change as a byproduct, but this principle should apply to everyone, not only to neurodivergent people.
Is what the person said technically correct? Yes or no. That's all that matters.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, because there are some neurotypical people who have mastered the art to say technically correct things but implying different, often awful things.
But isn't that a core part of the problem? If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? It seems like a constant game of walking on eggshells if you're trying to pre-emptively prevent anyone from concluding that you were trying to imply something bad.
It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversations and interviews: if the other party thinks you're implying something, they can follow-up and ask whether you are indeed intending to. Without two-way discourse, taking someone's statements in good faith seems like the lesser of two evils.
It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversations and interviews: if the other party thinks you're implying something, they can follow-up and ask whether you are indeed intending to. Without two-way discourse, taking someone's statements in good faith seems like the lesser of two evils.
> If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not?
If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person?
I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuum. However, surely patterns of behavior and the larger context of the words being said should play a role in our interpretation of the words said?
Otherwise you end up with things that, read hyper-literally, are innocuous while being completely heinous in context. "Exterminate the Vermin" said by an exterminator is very different to it being said by a German in 1944.
If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person?
I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuum. However, surely patterns of behavior and the larger context of the words being said should play a role in our interpretation of the words said?
Otherwise you end up with things that, read hyper-literally, are innocuous while being completely heinous in context. "Exterminate the Vermin" said by an exterminator is very different to it being said by a German in 1944.
Totally agree on all points. If someone said "exterminate the vermin", though, the ideal follow-up would be to ask "who or what are the vermin? And what do you mean by 'exterminate'?"
Weasel words are always going to dog whistle, but if you think that someone is implying something, the best scenario is to get them to explicitly agree or disagree with that statement.
Definitely not applicable in all cases, but if a person explicitly says "I did not mean to imply X, and I disagree with X", then it seems a good rule of thumb to believe that they do in fact disagree with X.
Weasel words are always going to dog whistle, but if you think that someone is implying something, the best scenario is to get them to explicitly agree or disagree with that statement.
Definitely not applicable in all cases, but if a person explicitly says "I did not mean to imply X, and I disagree with X", then it seems a good rule of thumb to believe that they do in fact disagree with X.
In this specific case, no, what he said was not logically ("technically"), correct.
The age of consent is so named because it is widely accepted that no minor is able to present themselves to an adult as "willing" to engage in sex. After much debate over hundreds of years and with inputs from researchers in child psychology, people below the age of consent are judged by society to not have the emotional maturity to make those decisions, irresepective of their physical maturity.
Now, a contrarian might argue that the age is wrong - and indeed, it does vary country by country, and often when the couple are very close in age it is accepted there was not a typical case of sexual exploitation by the elder party - but in the case RMS was referring to, Minsky was likely aware of the age of consent and the reason for its existence AND that his own behaviour was extremely likely to be exploitative and abusive no matter what the child said, so RMS's argument is logically absurd.
Minsky's behaviour can not be explained as "acceptable", because the law is not widely considered unjust in this situation other than by pedophiles. RMS' argument can logically be judged as being advocative of a pedophile's behaviour.
Therefore RMS' arguments are technically - i.e. logically - incorrect, as well as being deeply offensive to a large number of people.
He has since accepted this himself. He does not dispute it.
The age of consent is so named because it is widely accepted that no minor is able to present themselves to an adult as "willing" to engage in sex. After much debate over hundreds of years and with inputs from researchers in child psychology, people below the age of consent are judged by society to not have the emotional maturity to make those decisions, irresepective of their physical maturity.
Now, a contrarian might argue that the age is wrong - and indeed, it does vary country by country, and often when the couple are very close in age it is accepted there was not a typical case of sexual exploitation by the elder party - but in the case RMS was referring to, Minsky was likely aware of the age of consent and the reason for its existence AND that his own behaviour was extremely likely to be exploitative and abusive no matter what the child said, so RMS's argument is logically absurd.
Minsky's behaviour can not be explained as "acceptable", because the law is not widely considered unjust in this situation other than by pedophiles. RMS' argument can logically be judged as being advocative of a pedophile's behaviour.
Therefore RMS' arguments are technically - i.e. logically - incorrect, as well as being deeply offensive to a large number of people.
He has since accepted this himself. He does not dispute it.
Neurodiversity – up to some point anyway, some people take it a tad too far – is great, but that also means that different people are, well, different, and are good at different things.
Stallman is good at many different things and he doesn't seem like e bad bloke overall. But he is not good at being a leader. At all. It's just not where his aptitudes lie. As a leader he is not only ineffective, but even counter-productive and harmful.
I feel the entire conversation about the statements surrounding Minsky are a bit of a distraction; what we should really be talking about is something like "is Stallman the best person to represent us as a community?" I'd argue he's not, and has never really been.
Stallman is good at many different things and he doesn't seem like e bad bloke overall. But he is not good at being a leader. At all. It's just not where his aptitudes lie. As a leader he is not only ineffective, but even counter-productive and harmful.
I feel the entire conversation about the statements surrounding Minsky are a bit of a distraction; what we should really be talking about is something like "is Stallman the best person to represent us as a community?" I'd argue he's not, and has never really been.
You can have a conversation whether Stallman is the best person to be a leader, but let's keep false accusations and blatant misinterpretations of his words out of that please. Especially if those words are part of perfectly reasonable thought chain that lots of people on the spectrum would easily agree with (at least when being at the same point in the chain). When I read those attacks, it's not about Stallman anymore to me - it's about me and all the people like me (a group that just happens to include Stallman).
If someone lacks enough empathy and social skills to be able to put his words into appropriate context, then maybe they should refrain from interpreting those words (and yet they say that those are qualities that autistic people lack...)
If someone lacks enough empathy and social skills to be able to put his words into appropriate context, then maybe they should refrain from interpreting those words (and yet they say that those are qualities that autistic people lack...)
> You can have a conversation whether Stallman is the best person to be a leader, but let's keep false accusations and blatant misinterpretations of his words out of that please
Well, yes, but everyone is talking about this, including your comment.
Was Stallman treated unfairly? Sure. It is what it is; the world is an unfair place. I can't change that either. It's been a few years: let's move on and talk about effective leadership for the movement instead.
Well, yes, but everyone is talking about this, including your comment.
Was Stallman treated unfairly? Sure. It is what it is; the world is an unfair place. I can't change that either. It's been a few years: let's move on and talk about effective leadership for the movement instead.
> let's move on and talk about effective leadership for the movement instead.
Let's move on and welcome Stallman back, because we need him more than those that slandered him.
Let's also talk about what should change so it won't happen again, to anybody else.
Not everyone is a gentle giant like Stallman is.
Do you remember what happened to poor Aaron Swarz when he was falsely accused and prosecuted for things he hadn't done?
I, speaking for myself, don't want an FSF were people can get thrown out by an internet mob.
I want an FSF that defends its members and judge facts, not opinions.
I think Stallman is one of those persons, but I very much welcome other candidates.
Let's move on and welcome Stallman back, because we need him more than those that slandered him.
Let's also talk about what should change so it won't happen again, to anybody else.
Not everyone is a gentle giant like Stallman is.
Do you remember what happened to poor Aaron Swarz when he was falsely accused and prosecuted for things he hadn't done?
I, speaking for myself, don't want an FSF were people can get thrown out by an internet mob.
I want an FSF that defends its members and judge facts, not opinions.
I think Stallman is one of those persons, but I very much welcome other candidates.
This does seem like a slightly emotionally charged response, but overall i agree with you.
Stallman said things that would get most people "cancelled" nowadays, while his intent might have been to debate the language used, how it was dishonest and how jumping to conclusions might be a disingenuous way to go about things.
His words, from another post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535974
Stallman said things that would get most people "cancelled" nowadays, while his intent might have been to debate the language used, how it was dishonest and how jumping to conclusions might be a disingenuous way to go about things.
His words, from another post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535974
The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The 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. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates…
It's funny that we are both being downvoted by the same people that think they could do better than Stallman, but are usually younger (sometimes much younger) than the FSF itself.
I was merely 10 years old when it was started, so basically FSF is as old as the self conscious me, did only good, never betrayed their ideals, never harmed anyone, but Stallman seems to deserve hatred and disrespect only because he exists and don't care about other people opinions enough to be scared by them or by their mob behaviour.
In the past 35 years the best I could do is convincing less than a hundred people in total to switch to using Linux as their default Operating System at work (of course 99% of them still use proprietary systems at home), Stallman started a visionary movement that changed the way we look at software to its very foundation.
I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for what he did.
Meanwhile you can see people jumping on the BC, NFT, Apple and other bandwagons, praising them, describing them as "the future" despite the pervasive damage to society and environment they are (allegedly or not) producing, only because they own something of that brand.
If only Stallman thought of creating a fashion brand to scam people... how silly of him!
I was merely 10 years old when it was started, so basically FSF is as old as the self conscious me, did only good, never betrayed their ideals, never harmed anyone, but Stallman seems to deserve hatred and disrespect only because he exists and don't care about other people opinions enough to be scared by them or by their mob behaviour.
In the past 35 years the best I could do is convincing less than a hundred people in total to switch to using Linux as their default Operating System at work (of course 99% of them still use proprietary systems at home), Stallman started a visionary movement that changed the way we look at software to its very foundation.
I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for what he did.
Meanwhile you can see people jumping on the BC, NFT, Apple and other bandwagons, praising them, describing them as "the future" despite the pervasive damage to society and environment they are (allegedly or not) producing, only because they own something of that brand.
If only Stallman thought of creating a fashion brand to scam people... how silly of him!
> But he is not good at being a leader
Don't 35 years leading the FSF say otherwise?
Judging from the reactions in the FSF community to his coming back, people were missing him.
Don't 35 years leading the FSF say otherwise?
Judging from the reactions in the FSF community to his coming back, people were missing him.
Yes, accomplishments in his 35 years include:
- A major fracture in the movement (arguably two, if you count GPL2/3).
- Actively turning people off (Keith Packard, for example, described why they didn't license X under the GPL: "we had met Richard, and found him a challenging individual"; he later admitted that Stallman was right and that he should have listened).
- Sidetracking of pointless issues ("GNU/Linux", "you should not be using hacker", etc.)
- Alienating of many people who are generally keen on most of the Free Software principles.
- Insisting on absolute freedom to the detriment of more freedom than the status quo.
And so forth.
- A major fracture in the movement (arguably two, if you count GPL2/3).
- Actively turning people off (Keith Packard, for example, described why they didn't license X under the GPL: "we had met Richard, and found him a challenging individual"; he later admitted that Stallman was right and that he should have listened).
- Sidetracking of pointless issues ("GNU/Linux", "you should not be using hacker", etc.)
- Alienating of many people who are generally keen on most of the Free Software principles.
- Insisting on absolute freedom to the detriment of more freedom than the status quo.
And so forth.
According to this comment, he did better than any other leader in the World.
> Alienating of many people who are generally keen on most of the Free Software principles
Did donations went up or down during his leadership?
And what happened when he "left"?
How many people found out that Stallman was right in retrospect?
> Insisting on absolute freedom to the detriment of more freedom than the status quo.
That's the core mission of the FSF.
Our Core Work
The FSF sponsors the GNU Project—the ongoing effort to provide a complete operating system licensed as free software. We also fund and promote important free software development and provide development systems for GNU software maintainers, including full email and shell services and mailing lists. We are committed to furthering the development of the GNU Operating System and enabling volunteers to easily contribute to that work, including sponsoring Savannah the source code repository and center for free software development.
> Alienating of many people who are generally keen on most of the Free Software principles
Did donations went up or down during his leadership?
And what happened when he "left"?
How many people found out that Stallman was right in retrospect?
> Insisting on absolute freedom to the detriment of more freedom than the status quo.
That's the core mission of the FSF.
Our Core Work
The FSF sponsors the GNU Project—the ongoing effort to provide a complete operating system licensed as free software. We also fund and promote important free software development and provide development systems for GNU software maintainers, including full email and shell services and mailing lists. We are committed to furthering the development of the GNU Operating System and enabling volunteers to easily contribute to that work, including sponsoring Savannah the source code repository and center for free software development.
That last "Our Core Work" paragraph is hilarious and straight from 1996. The special mention that Savannah gets makes it double hilarious, since it's the worst code repository software ever created and was already stale in 2001.
If you want FSF to be some sort of "by hackers, for hackers" thing: sure, go for it. If you want anything more: lolno. The FSF is Free Software's worst enemy.
If you want FSF to be some sort of "by hackers, for hackers" thing: sure, go for it. If you want anything more: lolno. The FSF is Free Software's worst enemy.
> The FSF is Free Software's worst enemy.
That's a bold claim, but since I don't have a horse in this race my opinion is that FOSS space is huge and one size fits all is not possible anymore.
They can't make everybody happy and it would be silly to even try.
If you don't like FSF, you can support other entities.
I believe it's perfectly fine to disagree, but I also believe FSF has never forced anybody to do anything they didn't want to do.
I personally would much prefer to see many others trying than changing what the FSF stands for simply because they are not trying to please everybody.
Anyway, I see people treating Stallman like a devil, while working for big corporations or happily using proprietary software, like Github (Microsoft), while accusing Stallman of being enemy of the free software.
it's a weird shift from the times when Microsoft was referred as M$...
That's a bold claim, but since I don't have a horse in this race my opinion is that FOSS space is huge and one size fits all is not possible anymore.
They can't make everybody happy and it would be silly to even try.
If you don't like FSF, you can support other entities.
I believe it's perfectly fine to disagree, but I also believe FSF has never forced anybody to do anything they didn't want to do.
I personally would much prefer to see many others trying than changing what the FSF stands for simply because they are not trying to please everybody.
Anyway, I see people treating Stallman like a devil, while working for big corporations or happily using proprietary software, like Github (Microsoft), while accusing Stallman of being enemy of the free software.
it's a weird shift from the times when Microsoft was referred as M$...
I don't think RMS is "the devil", but we do allow him to frame the debate and priorities, and I don't think this is a good thing as I feel his priorities are all wrong. The more mindshare RMS takes up, the less there is for things that do matter.
Why aren't we using some Free Software platform to develop our software on? No really, if we can't get our own tooling together then what does that say about the movement as a whole? People use GitHub simply because it's the best platform out there; I did a review of many alternatives a while ago, and GitHub was the best by far. It's as simple as that really. The problem with the "RMS mindset" is that "it's Free Software" is enough of a "feature" that will make people use it, and turns out it's not except for quite a small group of people.
Imagine an alternative universe where the FSF had invested significant time an resources in developing a Savannah that actually, you know, worked well. Not only would people use it, and it would have been a great platform to spread the word about Free Software and why it matters. Instead, Stallman writes polemics about how SaaS is evil and you shouldn't be using these "Service as a Software Substitute". Okay, nice... But also missing the point and that's just not how software works today, or will ever work again. The 80s have come and gone.
I don't work for a big corporation btw; I've actually been work full-time on Free Software for the last 2 years, making about €700/month or so. At least I put my money where my mouth is :-)
Why aren't we using some Free Software platform to develop our software on? No really, if we can't get our own tooling together then what does that say about the movement as a whole? People use GitHub simply because it's the best platform out there; I did a review of many alternatives a while ago, and GitHub was the best by far. It's as simple as that really. The problem with the "RMS mindset" is that "it's Free Software" is enough of a "feature" that will make people use it, and turns out it's not except for quite a small group of people.
Imagine an alternative universe where the FSF had invested significant time an resources in developing a Savannah that actually, you know, worked well. Not only would people use it, and it would have been a great platform to spread the word about Free Software and why it matters. Instead, Stallman writes polemics about how SaaS is evil and you shouldn't be using these "Service as a Software Substitute". Okay, nice... But also missing the point and that's just not how software works today, or will ever work again. The 80s have come and gone.
I don't work for a big corporation btw; I've actually been work full-time on Free Software for the last 2 years, making about €700/month or so. At least I put my money where my mouth is :-)
> Imagine an alternative universe where the FSF had invested significant time an resources in developing a Savannah that actually, you know, worked well.
it works well enough for those who use it I guess
But I also like to imagine a world where projects like Savannah are backed by investors with very deep pockets instead of existing only out of the hard work of volunteers
Anyway, I use a private instance of gitea for my personal projects, it costs me 3 euros/month for the hosting and another couple bucks for the storage
I agree with what Stallman says about SAAS, I am not as radical as he is, not by a long shot, but SaaS platforms pose a big risk in terms of vendor lock in
I also share your frustration about what it could be, but it's not (yet, hopefully)
> I don't work for a big corporation btw; I've actually been work full-time on Free Software for the last 2 years, making about €700/month or so. At least I put my money where my mouth is :-)
you deserve my gratitude then for all the work that you do personally and as a part of the FOSS community
it works well enough for those who use it I guess
But I also like to imagine a world where projects like Savannah are backed by investors with very deep pockets instead of existing only out of the hard work of volunteers
Anyway, I use a private instance of gitea for my personal projects, it costs me 3 euros/month for the hosting and another couple bucks for the storage
I agree with what Stallman says about SAAS, I am not as radical as he is, not by a long shot, but SaaS platforms pose a big risk in terms of vendor lock in
I also share your frustration about what it could be, but it's not (yet, hopefully)
> I don't work for a big corporation btw; I've actually been work full-time on Free Software for the last 2 years, making about €700/month or so. At least I put my money where my mouth is :-)
you deserve my gratitude then for all the work that you do personally and as a part of the FOSS community
> - Actively turning people off (Keith Packard, for example, ... later admitted that Stallman was right
Packard did, but you're still blaming Stallman for Packard being wrong?!?
> - Sidetracking of pointless issues ("GNU/Linux", "you should not be using hacker", etc.)
And here you are, posting on Hacker News. Are you sure you could do that, without becoming a pariah among your peers if it came out, without Stallman's "sidetracking"?
Packard did, but you're still blaming Stallman for Packard being wrong?!?
> - Sidetracking of pointless issues ("GNU/Linux", "you should not be using hacker", etc.)
And here you are, posting on Hacker News. Are you sure you could do that, without becoming a pariah among your peers if it came out, without Stallman's "sidetracking"?
> intentionally offensive
I think this is spot on, because people stopped caring about someone's intention before judging them. Maybe people got so good at lying about their intention, that we don't believe them when they say "it wasn't my intention" when someone says something bad. The end result is the same, it doesn't matter what your intention was, you say something bad, you deserve bad back.
I think this is spot on, because people stopped caring about someone's intention before judging them. Maybe people got so good at lying about their intention, that we don't believe them when they say "it wasn't my intention" when someone says something bad. The end result is the same, it doesn't matter what your intention was, you say something bad, you deserve bad back.
In an ideal world, intent shouldn't really matter (it does matter in our world, for pragmatic reasons, but it shouldn't). If the results of one's actions cause harm, one should be dissuaded from continuing / repeating those actions, regardless of intent.
You do rightly point out the reason intent does tend to matter in reality: it's that the response to RMS' actions are punitive ("you deserve bad back"). And ideally people shouldn't be punished for unintended mistakes; they should instead be helped (sorry if that comes across condescending to the offender, but it's true).
Focusing on intent instead of outcomes is still regressive or reductive in either case though.
---
Aside: this is somewhat off-topic and probably a debate for a separate comment/thread here, but I do want to note I use the term "harm" above very intentionally; I don't believe "offensive" is the correct term here at all. Being offended is not harmful. I think a lot of aspects of PC/cancel-culture focus on protecting those who are "offended", which is nonsense. If you're not offending people in this world, you're not living. But doing actual harm goes beyond that, and should be addressed. And I do believe RMS' actions were harmful.
You do rightly point out the reason intent does tend to matter in reality: it's that the response to RMS' actions are punitive ("you deserve bad back"). And ideally people shouldn't be punished for unintended mistakes; they should instead be helped (sorry if that comes across condescending to the offender, but it's true).
Focusing on intent instead of outcomes is still regressive or reductive in either case though.
---
Aside: this is somewhat off-topic and probably a debate for a separate comment/thread here, but I do want to note I use the term "harm" above very intentionally; I don't believe "offensive" is the correct term here at all. Being offended is not harmful. I think a lot of aspects of PC/cancel-culture focus on protecting those who are "offended", which is nonsense. If you're not offending people in this world, you're not living. But doing actual harm goes beyond that, and should be addressed. And I do believe RMS' actions were harmful.
Intention matters when the charge consists of someone imparting intent and meaning beyond that which was said.
It’s not the case that all people need to be aware of and sensitive to every possible person’s misinterpretation of their message. The inverse is closer to true, and the only viable option.
How do you expect someone to know what they don’t know?
It’s not the case that all people need to be aware of and sensitive to every possible person’s misinterpretation of their message. The inverse is closer to true, and the only viable option.
How do you expect someone to know what they don’t know?
> you say something bad, you deserve bad back
But he didn't, he was falsely accused.
So maybe the people that accused him deserve something bad back too.
But he didn't, he was falsely accused.
So maybe the people that accused him deserve something bad back too.
Yeah thats me, I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome'
All the well meaning in the world doesn't mean shit if you're creating hostility or demeaning others (that is not commentary on RMS, just in general)
All the well meaning in the world doesn't mean shit if you're creating hostility or demeaning others (that is not commentary on RMS, just in general)
"I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome'"
Clearly intent and context matters a lot.
These are all different things, but the end result is that someone has been hit with a car. If your goal is to avoid people being hit with cars and someone keeps accidentally hitting people with their car, then you probably want to considering whether that person should be allowed to drive.
The causes are of different classification and require different responses.
When a cause is systemic it maybe with some natural variance and within what realistically deem acceptable, depending on where we set the bounds. While others maybe special cases and require detailed study to understand.
Blindly setting outcome goals without understanding the system is folly.
When a cause is systemic it maybe with some natural variance and within what realistically deem acceptable, depending on where we set the bounds. While others maybe special cases and require detailed study to understand.
Blindly setting outcome goals without understanding the system is folly.
Sure! The response to someone who is deliberately offensive and someone who habitually offends people by accident should be different, and I don't think anyone denies that. But that's not an argument for doing nothing in response to someone who habitually offends people by accident.
"But that's not an argument for doing nothing in response to someone who habitually offends people by accident."
If I say that your posts are constantly offending me, what do you propose we do about that?
There isn't a universally applicable rule here.
This is also where the driving analogy breaks down. It's an easy trade-off to revoke someone's license if it means we can prevent death. But taking action to prevent subjective offense enters into a much more tenuous and debatable cost-benefit trade-off. What makes sense would come down to the details of the case.
You might also want to consider whether the people that have habitual contact with that accident prone person, should in fact be allowed to have contact with that person.
[deleted]
They don't call them "on purposes". Intent and context do matter.
On the other hand, if a driver consistently has accidents and people end up dead, it could be that they are a bad driver and shouldn't be in a position to, you know, drive.
On the other hand, if a driver consistently has accidents and people end up dead, it could be that they are a bad driver and shouldn't be in a position to, you know, drive.
> Clearly intent and context matters a lot.
The parent comment was short, said "as much as", and yet people downvote it, misinterpret it.
The parent comment was short, said "as much as", and yet people downvote it, misinterpret it.
Not so different to the deceased, though.
You're extending the analogy beyond its usefulness.
In the case of subjective offense, it should be and usually is different.
If you're called a racial slur by someone who just started learning English and genuinely doesn't know the true meaning of the word, you should take less offense to it than if you were called the slur by someone with obvious malicious intent.
Intent and context matters both in terms of how the "accused" should be viewed as well as how the "victim" should feel.
In the case of subjective offense, it should be and usually is different.
If you're called a racial slur by someone who just started learning English and genuinely doesn't know the true meaning of the word, you should take less offense to it than if you were called the slur by someone with obvious malicious intent.
Intent and context matters both in terms of how the "accused" should be viewed as well as how the "victim" should feel.
[deleted]
I have never in my life seen so much hostility generated by good intentions as we are seeing now during this woke revolution. I repeat - never! And I lived through collapses of two failed states.
There's nothing new about wokeness. It's just what American Protestantism looks like; Americans have always been this way.
Even used to be called the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Awakes
Even used to be called the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Awakes
Interesting, but woke beliefs are based on European deconstructionism and the goals and methods look more like post-marxist/maoist
Nothing "post" about it. Wokeism's forced public self-abasement via Twitter is the classic Communist struggle session put online.
They may have good intentions, but they lack respect for established norms, and spend little time thinking about the function and purpose of those norms. They kick over Chesterton's fence and assume it was there because Chesterton was some sort -ist: https://fs.blog/2020/03/chestertons-fence/
[deleted]
That is what revolutions are about, no?
Only some revolutions involve unfocused rage at existing norms, and they’re usually bad ones (like the French Revolution).
>> I have never in my life seen so much hostility generated by good intentions as we are seeing now during this woke revolution.
The "woke" don't actually have good intentions. There are several motivations, but good intent just seems to be an excuse for the hostility you mention.
The "woke" don't actually have good intentions. There are several motivations, but good intent just seems to be an excuse for the hostility you mention.
The vast majority of people you would write off as ""woke"" do have good intentions. There's just a very loud minority just as there are in any political movement.
I actually can see where the person you are replying to is coming from. That loud minority can be viewed as leadership, and they seem to fall into three categories- grifters, bullies, and burn the world types
That's a strong statement about a whole lot of people.
Maybe you should limit that to "The 'woke' people I know."
Maybe you should limit that to "The 'woke' people I know."
Selam Jie Gano, a female at MIT when he worked there wrote:
“There is no single person that is so deserving of praise their comments deprecating others should be allowed to slide. Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.”
“There is no single person that is so deserving of praise their comments deprecating others should be allowed to slide. Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.”
If you read her post, she was an undergraduate in Mechanical Engineering, and by her own admittance did not ever work nor interact with RMS at MIT.
This guy, however, did.
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
This quote stuck out:
> I feel very sad for him. He’s a tragic figure. He is one of the most brilliant people I’ve met, who I have always thought desperately craved friendship and camaraderie, and seems to have less and less of it all the time. This is all his doing; nobody does it to him. But it’s still very sad. As far as I can tell, he believes his entire life’s work is a failure.
The auther (Thomas Bushnell) goes on to say the decision (to remove RMS) was the right one but for the totality of RMSs behavior over the years, not the incidents highlighted by the media.
The auther (Thomas Bushnell) goes on to say the decision (to remove RMS) was the right one but for the totality of RMSs behavior over the years, not the incidents highlighted by the media.
Is something cut off in that quote? I don't understand how to read it
"There is no single person that is so deserving of praise [that] their comments deprecating others should be allowed to slide. Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.”
Ah! Thank you
Great quote. I think a large fraction of male programmers would disagree with Selam Jie Gano's characterization of RMS's statements. These kinds of "culture war" battles should not be happening in GNU. Free Software should be happening and people should be willing to leave these disagreements at the door. If you aren't, I am significantly less interested in working with you and I suspect many GNU contributors are as well.
I don't get this. "You should abandon any other ideals you have when working for our ideological project."
The point of an ideological project (or any project, really) is to try and get everyone pulling in the same direction. GNU/FSF is an organization for one specific ideal: free software. It's not intended as a vehicle for any random ideal people care about.
>It's not intended as a vehicle for any random ideal people care about.
Who used it like that? Stallman's comments happened outside the organization, the tweet was from someone I think unrelated to the project. I can understand keeping other ideals out of the project, but in context you're telling people not to express other ideals.
Who used it like that? Stallman's comments happened outside the organization, the tweet was from someone I think unrelated to the project. I can understand keeping other ideals out of the project, but in context you're telling people not to express other ideals.
> the tweet was from someone I think unrelated to the project
Seems fine for unrelated Twitter randos to say whatever they want about RMS, but would be distracting and counterproductive for GNU/FSF to permanently ban RMS in support of Twitter randos' unrelated ideals. I never said or implied anything about stopping Twitter randos from expressing or doing whatever they want.
Seems fine for unrelated Twitter randos to say whatever they want about RMS, but would be distracting and counterproductive for GNU/FSF to permanently ban RMS in support of Twitter randos' unrelated ideals. I never said or implied anything about stopping Twitter randos from expressing or doing whatever they want.
I was asking you who used it as a vehicle... as the two people directly being discussed had not. I did not think you were trying to stop random people on twitter.
I think you're answering that GNU/FSF used it improperly but am not certain.
I think you're answering that GNU/FSF used it improperly but am not certain.
Yes, the people working for GNU/FSF started using GNU/FSF to punish RMS in support of other ideals. Twitter randos may have talked about it but it's up to the GNU/FSF to focus & act on it.
... in the name of the organization.
And RMS's "pleasure cards" listing his office address and organizational email certainly indicate that his private activities are the organizations activities.
And RMS's "pleasure cards" listing his office address and organizational email certainly indicate that his private activities are the organizations activities.
Yes, he should have been reprimanded for using the organization's name to make a bad joke seemingly decades ago.
Basic compartmentalization. If i have ideological goals A, B, C, then i can work on goal A with people who are indifferent or against B, C, and also work on goal B with people who are indifferent or against A, C, instead of trying to find people in intersection of A, B, C.
I doubt people can compartmentalize things that are in vehement disagreement with their core values.
Would Stallman work on implementing a DRM?
And not in this case, but what about someone denying the other’s existence? Actively supporting groups that work on restricting someone’s basic rights? (Mozilla with Eich)
Would Stallman work on implementing a DRM?
And not in this case, but what about someone denying the other’s existence? Actively supporting groups that work on restricting someone’s basic rights? (Mozilla with Eich)
> Would Stallman work on implementing a DRM?
It is a big difference working on A with people i disagree about B, and actively working against one's values. I can work with non-vegetarians on software, but i would not work in slaughterhouse.
> And not in this case, but what about someone denying the other’s existence?
As an LGBT person (and pro same-sex marriage), i think that mixing up 'being against same-sex marriage' and 'denying the other’s existence' is just horrible rhetorical device, fear-mongering about opponent's position.
It is a big difference working on A with people i disagree about B, and actively working against one's values. I can work with non-vegetarians on software, but i would not work in slaughterhouse.
> And not in this case, but what about someone denying the other’s existence?
As an LGBT person (and pro same-sex marriage), i think that mixing up 'being against same-sex marriage' and 'denying the other’s existence' is just horrible rhetorical device, fear-mongering about opponent's position.
kaba0(1)
I'm not autistic, and I think RMS statement was 100% rational. If not, then anyone can show me where he is factually wrong.
I just wanna leave here some classic papers on sexism and harassment in tech, which are relevant even now:
[1] Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists (Ellen Spertus, 1991)
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7040
[2] How to Encourage Women in Linux (Val Henson, 2002)
https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/
[3] What Happens to Us Does Not Happen to Most of You (Kathryn S. McKinley, 2018)
https://www.sigarch.org/what-happens-to-us-does-not-happen-t...
[4] Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, 2001)
https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-P...
[1] Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists (Ellen Spertus, 1991)
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7040
[2] How to Encourage Women in Linux (Val Henson, 2002)
https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/
[3] What Happens to Us Does Not Happen to Most of You (Kathryn S. McKinley, 2018)
https://www.sigarch.org/what-happens-to-us-does-not-happen-t...
[4] Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, 2001)
https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-P...
It also an issue I have with Codes of Conduct. There was a person who posted to the LKML about his autism and concerns over unintentionally violating the CoC, and whether he should continue to contribute or not. I don't recall anyone replying to him and his concerns either.
Computing can possibly be considered a 'safe space' for people like the above but that has now been dismantled to suit other people. Who owns the safe spaces?
I'm not condoning people being assholes, BTW.
Computing can possibly be considered a 'safe space' for people like the above but that has now been dismantled to suit other people. Who owns the safe spaces?
I'm not condoning people being assholes, BTW.
On LKML I'm not really seeing the difficulty. Just stick to the point: "Here's a patch that does X, Y, and Z".
If having to criticize something do it on technical grounds: "This part here is wrong because it's possible to go past the end of the buffer in this case".
I know that some people sometimes post colorful rants on there, but I don't think it adds anything good to the atmosphere, and any time spent on coming up with florid prose could be spent on code that actually does something useful instead.
If having to criticize something do it on technical grounds: "This part here is wrong because it's possible to go past the end of the buffer in this case".
I know that some people sometimes post colorful rants on there, but I don't think it adds anything good to the atmosphere, and any time spent on coming up with florid prose could be spent on code that actually does something useful instead.
plenty of autistic people manage to be decent. making excuses like this simply dodges responsibility and assigns bad credit to millions of autistic people who don't deserve it, and amounts to concern trolling.
It's very difficult to generalize over autistic people, because autism encompasses such a wide range of behaviors and abilities. But many people on the autism spectrum seem to have in common that they have (a) below average ability in picking up subtle social cues and (b) above average ability in memorizing and following rules.
In consequence, if RMS is truly on the autism spectrum (I have no idea whether he is), never setting clear boundaries for him may have left him genuinely confused as to what constitutes appropriate behavior, and ultimately did neither him nor his cause any favors.
In consequence, if RMS is truly on the autism spectrum (I have no idea whether he is), never setting clear boundaries for him may have left him genuinely confused as to what constitutes appropriate behavior, and ultimately did neither him nor his cause any favors.
Based on much of what I read the last time around with this mess, it seems to me, though, that RMS just doesn't care. It's one thing to be genuinely confused what's appropriate and what's not, but it's another to just not care. It seems like people tried many, many times to set clear boundaries for him, but he continued to blow right through them.
Was that a fault of his, or a fault of his neuroatypical brain? I don't know enough about him or his situation to know. But does it matter? I do think that intent and context matters, but often the bad outcome is the same regardless of intent. The consequences should be different between intentional and unintentional harm, but there still should be consequences either way.
Was that a fault of his, or a fault of his neuroatypical brain? I don't know enough about him or his situation to know. But does it matter? I do think that intent and context matters, but often the bad outcome is the same regardless of intent. The consequences should be different between intentional and unintentional harm, but there still should be consequences either way.
Your statement is analogous to saying “all autistic people are the same” which is itself very offensive.
show me where i said that.
autistic people are not uniquely malevolent, and it is not offensive to suggest autistic people are not uniquely malevolent.
the premise at the root of the thread was that autistic people can't tell bad ideas from good ideas, and should thus go forever uncriticized. both in that it's wrong, and in that it casts autistic people as corruptible and dangerous, when we know very well most "normal" allistic people are perfectly capable of great evils.
advocating that it should be acceptable for autistic people to cause harm is not helpful. it promotes the stereotype that autistic people are harmful, resulting in further social rejection and discrimination, and allows abusive people to hide behind the label.
autistic people are not uniquely malevolent, and it is not offensive to suggest autistic people are not uniquely malevolent.
the premise at the root of the thread was that autistic people can't tell bad ideas from good ideas, and should thus go forever uncriticized. both in that it's wrong, and in that it casts autistic people as corruptible and dangerous, when we know very well most "normal" allistic people are perfectly capable of great evils.
advocating that it should be acceptable for autistic people to cause harm is not helpful. it promotes the stereotype that autistic people are harmful, resulting in further social rejection and discrimination, and allows abusive people to hide behind the label.
> advocating that it should be acceptable for autistic people to cause harm is not helpful.
It should be acceptable to empathize and forgive. People who exhibit “atypical” personality traits need this the most of all. Judging all people through the lens of a neurotypical morality construct is inherently harmful.
It should be acceptable to empathize and forgive. People who exhibit “atypical” personality traits need this the most of all. Judging all people through the lens of a neurotypical morality construct is inherently harmful.
> was that autistic people can't tell bad ideas from good ideas
They can tell that. Sometimes maybe even better than others.
What they can't do well is navigate across social clues that others pick up instinctively. That aren't explicitly spoken.
It's not about considering them harmful or not, it's not whether they should be forgiven or not. It's about understanding. An autistic person behaves in a way that you interpret as "being an asshole" not because they can't tell whether they're being an asshole - it's because they think in a different way and their reasoning makes perfect sense for them and doesn't make them seem like an asshole. You lack that reasoning, so you misinterpret their intentions.
The point is to understand why someone may act in the way they do, instead of assuming that they would act in the same way you would.
For instance, something that you would say just out of politeness can be interpreted by an autistic person very literally. When you ask "would you like to make me a tea?", expect "no" to be a totally polite and honest answer. That's literally what you asked about.
They can tell that. Sometimes maybe even better than others.
What they can't do well is navigate across social clues that others pick up instinctively. That aren't explicitly spoken.
It's not about considering them harmful or not, it's not whether they should be forgiven or not. It's about understanding. An autistic person behaves in a way that you interpret as "being an asshole" not because they can't tell whether they're being an asshole - it's because they think in a different way and their reasoning makes perfect sense for them and doesn't make them seem like an asshole. You lack that reasoning, so you misinterpret their intentions.
The point is to understand why someone may act in the way they do, instead of assuming that they would act in the same way you would.
For instance, something that you would say just out of politeness can be interpreted by an autistic person very literally. When you ask "would you like to make me a tea?", expect "no" to be a totally polite and honest answer. That's literally what you asked about.
> An autistic person behaves in a way that you interpret as "being an asshole" not because they can't tell whether they're being an asshole - it's because they think in a different way and their reasoning makes perfect sense for them and doesn't make them seem like an asshole.
Aren't you basically doing the same thing as the parent is accused of doing, though? Painting all autistic people with the same brush?
Just like non-autistic people, autistic people can also be assholes. Some recognize that they can't pick up on social cues, but just don't care. Many do! But some don't. RMS may be one of the uncaring kind, and it seems a lot of what people have said about him may support that. And do we really want someone like that running advocacy for Free Software?
Aren't you basically doing the same thing as the parent is accused of doing, though? Painting all autistic people with the same brush?
Just like non-autistic people, autistic people can also be assholes. Some recognize that they can't pick up on social cues, but just don't care. Many do! But some don't. RMS may be one of the uncaring kind, and it seems a lot of what people have said about him may support that. And do we really want someone like that running advocacy for Free Software?
> Just like non-autistic people, autistic people can also be assholes.
I figured that it goes without saying, since that case doesn't need additional explanations ;]
I figured that it goes without saying, since that case doesn't need additional explanations ;]
To me, the only thing implied by the above comment is that "all autistic people are capable of being decent to other people." That doesn't seem offensive, although it may be incorrect (I simply do not know).
Clearly not all neurotypical people are capable of being decent to others, so how would it make sense that all autistic people are?
No, to assume that forgiveness or empathy to one autistic individual denigrates an entire spectrum of autistic individuals is the same as assuming that from the actions of one we can confer some sort of collective responsibility. This assumption is the root of all prejudice.
No, to assume that forgiveness or empathy to one autistic individual denigrates an entire spectrum of autistic individuals is the same as assuming that from the actions of one we can confer some sort of collective responsibility. This assumption is the root of all prejudice.
>Clearly not all neurotypical people are capable of being decent to others, so how would it make sense that all autistic people are?
If you believe that some autistic people can be decent, though, it's no longer an excuse for Stallman that he's autistic. I'm on the spectrum myself, it's not a free pass for being offensive.
If you believe that some autistic people can be decent, though, it's no longer an excuse for Stallman that he's autistic. I'm on the spectrum myself, it's not a free pass for being offensive.
> Clearly not all neurotypical people are capable of being decent to others
This is not clear to me. Many people are assholes but that’s by choice, not because they’re incapable of not being assholes.
This is not clear to me. Many people are assholes but that’s by choice, not because they’re incapable of not being assholes.
Actually, I took it more as saying that having an offensive personality and being autistic are orthogonal. While it is possible for a person to be both autistic and offensive, using their autism as an excuse for their being offensive does not make sense.
If we're going to be understanding towards neurodivergent people, a good place to start is not defining "autism" as "the inability to be anything other than an asshole, the inability to understand after people patiently work with you to explain why people think you're being an asshole [1], and the inability to apologize."
Also, a lot of the people who are upset with RMS and think he should stop being the figurehead of the movement are, themselves, neurodivergent! If we're going to assume that autistic people are fundamentally incapable of communicating with mainstream norms, what do we do for autistic people who are harmed by RMS's actions but aren't able to express it in a way the mainstream can hear?
[1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
Also, a lot of the people who are upset with RMS and think he should stop being the figurehead of the movement are, themselves, neurodivergent! If we're going to assume that autistic people are fundamentally incapable of communicating with mainstream norms, what do we do for autistic people who are harmed by RMS's actions but aren't able to express it in a way the mainstream can hear?
[1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
I've always been against this scarlet letter mentality that seems pervasive.
I've also been vocally against RMS's particular brand of outreach as being incredibly alienating of the people whose opinions he actually needs to address. Admittedly, if he does have autism there's a ton of things that start to make sense, speaking from my own experiences with and around it, but I can't actually find a reference to any confirmed diagnosis from him. He's said he "suspects" as such, and I might as well, but it doesn't really help as neither of us are trained professionals. That being said, from my experience with autistic folks and what I know about him, it's not super surprising that he wouldn't get himself actually diagnosed or checked.
I've also been vocally against RMS's particular brand of outreach as being incredibly alienating of the people whose opinions he actually needs to address. Admittedly, if he does have autism there's a ton of things that start to make sense, speaking from my own experiences with and around it, but I can't actually find a reference to any confirmed diagnosis from him. He's said he "suspects" as such, and I might as well, but it doesn't really help as neither of us are trained professionals. That being said, from my experience with autistic folks and what I know about him, it's not super surprising that he wouldn't get himself actually diagnosed or checked.
He called himself borderline autistic in 2000 but said it was an exaggeration in 2008.[1]
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
Would his getting a diagnosis and publicly sharing that private medical information make you start treating him as an actual human being, or nah?
I would disagree with his rhetorical stylings whether or not he had autism, and probably wouldn't change much in the way of how I disagreed or really talked about him.
> publicly sharing that private medical information
Are we gonna side-step the fact that he's publicly stated in several interviews that he suspects that he's on the spectrum, or nah?
> make you start treating him as an actual human being
In what way have I not?
> publicly sharing that private medical information
Are we gonna side-step the fact that he's publicly stated in several interviews that he suspects that he's on the spectrum, or nah?
> make you start treating him as an actual human being
In what way have I not?
> In what way have I not?
Publicly speculating about medical diagnoses, for one thing.
Publicly speculating about medical diagnoses, for one thing.
I'm not speculating about medical diagnosis, I'm speculating on public statements from the man himself.
[deleted]
Being “neurodivergent” isn’t a license to hurt people. Yes, it is a reason to refrain from punishing someone, because punishment requires guilt. It isn’t a reason not to take the steps necessary to protect others, such as not putting them in a position of power.
Example: it doesn’t make sense to punish a cat that eats your parrot, because that’s what cats do. It does make sense to lock the door between the cat and the parrot.
Example: it doesn’t make sense to punish a cat that eats your parrot, because that’s what cats do. It does make sense to lock the door between the cat and the parrot.
I am an incredibly neurodivergent person and through focused effort, driven by caring about how other people feel, I've picked up on many social cues. I am comfortable excluding people who use their neurodivergence as an excuse to be unkind to other people.
>I am comfortable excluding people who
Could this be an opportunity for your focused effort? Exclusion is dramatically unkind.
Could this be an opportunity for your focused effort? Exclusion is dramatically unkind.
It is unkind, but sometimes one has to be unkind to prevent greater harms from happening. Such is life.
That is just an excuse to be unkind whenever convenient.
There is no objectivity in this. RMS was attacked by a specific subgroup of the identity culture. He could well be defended by another. Sometimes identity politics just seems to be the continuation of european leftist splinter group infighting with other means.
Exactly. Unfortunately, there are activists within the GNU movement, like Andy Wingo, that have done everything they can to have RMS removed from everything he has built.
People part of the GNU movement say "we owe a debt of gratitude to Richard Stallman for his decades of important work in the free software movement". Andy Wingo said "he created GNU, speaking it into existence via prophetic narrative and via code; yes, he inspired many people, myself included, to make the vision of a GNU system into a reality; and yes, he should be recognized for these things."
They also say: "Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users."
Andy also wrote: "I can hear you saying it. RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be. GNU has long outgrown any individual contributor. I don't think RMS has the legitimacy to tell this group of largely volunteers what we should build or how we should organize ourselves. Or rather, he can say what he thinks, but he has no dominion over GNU; he does not have majority sweat equity in the project. But I don't accept that. GNU is about practical software freedom, not about RMS. [...] I simply state that I, personally, do not serve RMS."
Your comment is the one attributing to others malicious intent:
"Unfortunately, there are activists within the GNU movement, like Andy Wingo, that have done everything they can to have RMS removed from everything he has built."
I don't know why, maybe when you get older (as I do), you start being afraid of being put out of work by younger people (I don't), or maybe you are yourself neurodivergent and weird with people (I do). It is logical, then, to feel empathy for rms. But, factually, rms is not being confronted for his "quircks" or his age.
The way public figures behave, publicly and in their relationship with others as part of their work, has an impact on the culture it encourages. The fact that people express discomfort, fear, etc. when they want to contribute to free software is worrying. I feel bad for them. I see nothing unfortunate here in having people confront someone in power for his behaviour.
I mean, it is 2021, do I need to quote the Peter Parker principle?
---
https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and...
https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/heidilynnekurter/2019/12/23/4-s...
They also say: "Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users."
Andy also wrote: "I can hear you saying it. RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be. GNU has long outgrown any individual contributor. I don't think RMS has the legitimacy to tell this group of largely volunteers what we should build or how we should organize ourselves. Or rather, he can say what he thinks, but he has no dominion over GNU; he does not have majority sweat equity in the project. But I don't accept that. GNU is about practical software freedom, not about RMS. [...] I simply state that I, personally, do not serve RMS."
Your comment is the one attributing to others malicious intent:
"Unfortunately, there are activists within the GNU movement, like Andy Wingo, that have done everything they can to have RMS removed from everything he has built."
I don't know why, maybe when you get older (as I do), you start being afraid of being put out of work by younger people (I don't), or maybe you are yourself neurodivergent and weird with people (I do). It is logical, then, to feel empathy for rms. But, factually, rms is not being confronted for his "quircks" or his age.
The way public figures behave, publicly and in their relationship with others as part of their work, has an impact on the culture it encourages. The fact that people express discomfort, fear, etc. when they want to contribute to free software is worrying. I feel bad for them. I see nothing unfortunate here in having people confront someone in power for his behaviour.
I mean, it is 2021, do I need to quote the Peter Parker principle?
---
https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and...
https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/heidilynnekurter/2019/12/23/4-s...
Thanks for finding those resources. In this one:
https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and...
He says:
"The result, sadly, is that a significant proportion of those that have stuck with GNU don't see any problems with RMS."
Yes, isn't it sad that so many don't see any problems with RMS. What can we do about that? How can we make people see problems with RMS? This is despicable activism.
https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and...
He says:
"The result, sadly, is that a significant proportion of those that have stuck with GNU don't see any problems with RMS."
Yes, isn't it sad that so many don't see any problems with RMS. What can we do about that? How can we make people see problems with RMS? This is despicable activism.
"The result" in the sentence is the result of selection bias or privilege
Celebrating neurodiversity is crucial! It is in my view a very basic human rights issue.
However it does not, or at least should not, extend to excusing/permitting behaviors that hurt others.
Much human anguish and suffering could be alleviated if we had a greater understanding of one simple truth: "your rights end where mine begin."
On balance, I think RMS is ultimately a person who has greatly benefited the world. However, the stories of people made uncomfortable by his actions and statements are legion and in a more practical sense are detrimental to his cause. How can folks with with/under him when he's behaving in some of these ways? Why does the leader of the FSF even need to be broadcasting his beliefs that Minsky did nothing wrong when he had sex with a 17 year-old provided to him by a child trafficker?
As somebody who (like most folks on HN, probably) is not exactly "neurotypical", I realize that it's part of my responsibility to moderate my own words and actions if I want to take part in society.
However it does not, or at least should not, extend to excusing/permitting behaviors that hurt others.
Much human anguish and suffering could be alleviated if we had a greater understanding of one simple truth: "your rights end where mine begin."
On balance, I think RMS is ultimately a person who has greatly benefited the world. However, the stories of people made uncomfortable by his actions and statements are legion and in a more practical sense are detrimental to his cause. How can folks with with/under him when he's behaving in some of these ways? Why does the leader of the FSF even need to be broadcasting his beliefs that Minsky did nothing wrong when he had sex with a 17 year-old provided to him by a child trafficker?
As somebody who (like most folks on HN, probably) is not exactly "neurotypical", I realize that it's part of my responsibility to moderate my own words and actions if I want to take part in society.
I just fundamentally reject the equivalence between “hurt” and “uncomfortable”. The idea that people have a moral obligation to be normal, that I’ve been injured when someone acts weird or offers distasteful opinions, could come straight out of a Moral Majority handbook. It only makes sense from within a strict monoculture, where everyone feels obligated to conform and confident that the things they have to conform with are unchanging.
This is not about a strict monoculture.
You can have a robust and diverse culture in which there's broad agreement that a few things are bad - murder, slavery, sex with minors, etc.
RMS defended Minsky's sex with a minor and perhaps more relevantly if we read the linked articles, it's part of a longstanding trend with him. And he feels the need to push these views on others in a workplace/academic setting, via mailing lists.
You can have a robust and diverse culture in which there's broad agreement that a few things are bad - murder, slavery, sex with minors, etc.
RMS defended Minsky's sex with a minor and perhaps more relevantly if we read the linked articles, it's part of a longstanding trend with him. And he feels the need to push these views on others in a workplace/academic setting, via mailing lists.
To be fair, he voiced most of his opinions on his personal blog, and not on the mailing list.
His personal blog is presumably a place which you would peruse, if you wanted to know what his personal views on things are, and it was so obscure that seemingly no one knew of it until someone really went digging.
Not only that, but he didn't even make these views with any particular frequency. One was made in 2006. Another six years later. So, a couple of comments he casually tossed out over decades, in a place where he would have expected few to ever see it.
To be clear, I don't agree with many of his opinions (some suggest he might have worded his opinions really, really badly, and might mean something else), although I agree with one original blog post he referenced, where child porn laws have become so stretched they're being applied in places they were never originally intended to be.
Like someone recording evidence to provide to the police of their children behaving in an overtly sexual manner which could be an indicator of abuse, arresting someone for a drawing which is a serious waste of police resources, the risk that someone can't reference historical images like the one from Vietnam, and so on.
On the mailing list, he responded in a literal fashion taking the premise that Minsky had been misled. Unfortunately, it was poorly worded. If he had simply said that, rather than going on about her "presenting herself", or the other utterances, then it wouldn't even be a story.
His personal blog is presumably a place which you would peruse, if you wanted to know what his personal views on things are, and it was so obscure that seemingly no one knew of it until someone really went digging.
Not only that, but he didn't even make these views with any particular frequency. One was made in 2006. Another six years later. So, a couple of comments he casually tossed out over decades, in a place where he would have expected few to ever see it.
To be clear, I don't agree with many of his opinions (some suggest he might have worded his opinions really, really badly, and might mean something else), although I agree with one original blog post he referenced, where child porn laws have become so stretched they're being applied in places they were never originally intended to be.
Like someone recording evidence to provide to the police of their children behaving in an overtly sexual manner which could be an indicator of abuse, arresting someone for a drawing which is a serious waste of police resources, the risk that someone can't reference historical images like the one from Vietnam, and so on.
On the mailing list, he responded in a literal fashion taking the premise that Minsky had been misled. Unfortunately, it was poorly worded. If he had simply said that, rather than going on about her "presenting herself", or the other utterances, then it wouldn't even be a story.
Right. I have full faith that his belief was that Minsky had made an honest mistake with a girl that would be considered legal anyway in large swaths of the world. I give RMS (what I would consider to be) the full benefit of the doubt here and I believe his message was less "Minsky is blameless" or "sex with kids is okay" and more "let's not confuse Minky's poor judgement with far, far more heinous crimes." And I wouldn't even really disagree with RMS there on a factual level.
Even given this generous interpretation, RMS' poorly chosen words are still rather egregious.
Specifically he misses the forest for the trees. A fundamental duty of adults is to make sure that our sex partners are (a) of legal age (b) truly freely consenting without coercion.
One can think of various circumstances in which one might reasonably make such a mistake in good faith. However, somebody's private... child sex island is not one of those places.
Even more importantly, RMS neglects even some sort of token recognition of the actual victims of Epstein's trafficking. Hint: Minsky is not one of them!
Even given this generous interpretation, RMS' poorly chosen words are still rather egregious.
Specifically he misses the forest for the trees. A fundamental duty of adults is to make sure that our sex partners are (a) of legal age (b) truly freely consenting without coercion.
One can think of various circumstances in which one might reasonably make such a mistake in good faith. However, somebody's private... child sex island is not one of those places.
Even more importantly, RMS neglects even some sort of token recognition of the actual victims of Epstein's trafficking. Hint: Minsky is not one of them!
I'm wondering how we decide where people who are different are behaving because of that.... or a choice they made that they are responsible for?
I'm not sure how to make that call.
I'm not sure how to make that call.
What we can do is speak to their actions and leave the door open for them to improve.
And I am not talking about avoiding consequences. Those are ever present as they should be.
However it all plays out, if we do shut that door, what inventive is there for people to improve?
Secondly, how do they actually present having done it, or even begin the attempt when those doors are slammed shut?
It should not be easy, but should also be possible.
And I am not talking about avoiding consequences. Those are ever present as they should be.
However it all plays out, if we do shut that door, what inventive is there for people to improve?
Secondly, how do they actually present having done it, or even begin the attempt when those doors are slammed shut?
It should not be easy, but should also be possible.
Neurodivergent folks often need a little extra time to learn or for somebody to sit down and explain things to clearly. We do not need a carte blanche for decades of sexual harassment. That's just somebody being an asshole and using us as a shield.
I think in recent years people are being criticized for what they say rather than what they do, as if saying it is the same as doing it. You should be able to hold a negative viewpoint as long as you don't act on it.
How do we know that Richard Stallman is autistic?
I find it strange as a neurodivergent person that this person has a reputation for abusive behavior and that’s excused for him because he has celebrity in certain circles. I wouldn’t and shouldn’t be afforded that, and rightly haven’t when I’ve misunderstood how to treat others.
I do not. Being unusual does not free you from the burdens of being a decent person, especially while in a public leadership position, especially when your violations are a repeated trend over a very long period.
With the right diagnostic criteria just about everybody who is an asshole could be diagnosed with some mental disorder or another and that is more or less the present state of psychology, that kind of reasoning is asking for a consequence free society.
The kind of person RMS has shown himself to be, regardless of diagnosis, disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader.
With the right diagnostic criteria just about everybody who is an asshole could be diagnosed with some mental disorder or another and that is more or less the present state of psychology, that kind of reasoning is asking for a consequence free society.
The kind of person RMS has shown himself to be, regardless of diagnosis, disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader.
I don't think RMS has ever intentionally been an asshole. The event that got him kicked out was him trying to clarify that someone he worked with may not of known all the details of the situation and that people shouldn't witch hunt this person who was not around to defend themself.
Sure it was a very risky and emotionally charged email thread but RMS still very much seems like a decent person.
Sure it was a very risky and emotionally charged email thread but RMS still very much seems like a decent person.
>The event that got him kicked out was him trying to clarify that someone he worked with may not of known all the details of the situation and that people shouldn't witch hunt this person who was not around to defend themselfs.
No, it went much further than that:
https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of...
No, it went much further than that:
https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of...
Doesn’t look like it did. Looks like another case of cancel culture and nobody reading what he actually said.
I encourage you to read what he actually said rather than digest it through hit pieces, because it’s not even controversial.
He said that, hypothetically, if someone had sex with a victim of sex trafficking unkowingly - that is, the sex part was knowingly, but the victim of sex trafficking part was unknown, then it would not be fair to charge the man with rape.
If I kidnap a woman, sell her has a sex slave, and threaten her and her family that if she doesn’t walk up to you in a bar and act interested, and you mistake her for a willing participant, this obviously does not make you a rapist.
I don’t know if this is a willful distortion of what he said or what would motivate such a smear campaign, or if every is just shockingly bad at reading comprehension. But what he said was correct, and we all know it.
He said that, hypothetically, if someone had sex with a victim of sex trafficking unkowingly - that is, the sex part was knowingly, but the victim of sex trafficking part was unknown, then it would not be fair to charge the man with rape.
If I kidnap a woman, sell her has a sex slave, and threaten her and her family that if she doesn’t walk up to you in a bar and act interested, and you mistake her for a willing participant, this obviously does not make you a rapist.
I don’t know if this is a willful distortion of what he said or what would motivate such a smear campaign, or if every is just shockingly bad at reading comprehension. But what he said was correct, and we all know it.
I read them this in light of his past statements here, which seem to cast the statements he made around Minsky differently. In particular,
"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."
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html
"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."
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html
And what's wrong with that take, exactly? It's a natural conclusion any critical thinker who strongly values individualism will come into before they start to consider the differences of power at play that make giving and recognizing actual consent very tricky (even for adults, let alone children); which actually isn't that obvious to notice at all if you have never been in such situation yourself before. This is a take that is logically coherent and honest - and naturally progresses once you learn new information. Which seems to be exactly what happened in case of Stallman, who retracted his earlier opinion in a logically coherent way.
Honestly, I'm amazed at how many bad ideas people can come into just because they don't understand that other people may think with different processes than they do. I'm honestly not sure whether it's intellectual laziness or pure malice (or both).
Honestly, I'm amazed at how many bad ideas people can come into just because they don't understand that other people may think with different processes than they do. I'm honestly not sure whether it's intellectual laziness or pure malice (or both).
>And what's wrong with that take, exactly?
You know what's wrong with it and you described what's wrong with it over the next several sentences. Somebody who doesn't understand that is not fit to be a leader. If you don't understand those power imbalances, you are bound to do harm.
You know what's wrong with it and you described what's wrong with it over the next several sentences. Somebody who doesn't understand that is not fit to be a leader. If you don't understand those power imbalances, you are bound to do harm.
> If you don't understand those power imbalances, you are bound to do harm.
That's not a bad point. But then it turns out that it's not really connected to the statements about Minsky, is it?
> Somebody who doesn't understand that is not fit to be a leader.
This is stretching it way too far, since this assumes that understanding of power in hypothetical scenario that doesn't connect to yourself somehow translates to ones ability to assess their own power. This may be true for some, but doesn't have to be. I won't be convinced that someone is unfit to be a leader because they didn't recognize the issues of power in a hypothetical scenario they have never been in. Heck, I myself constantly learn and start to see them in cases I never considered before. Different perspective changes everything, and there are perspectives I simply never witnessed until someone told me about them!
That's not a bad point. But then it turns out that it's not really connected to the statements about Minsky, is it?
> Somebody who doesn't understand that is not fit to be a leader.
This is stretching it way too far, since this assumes that understanding of power in hypothetical scenario that doesn't connect to yourself somehow translates to ones ability to assess their own power. This may be true for some, but doesn't have to be. I won't be convinced that someone is unfit to be a leader because they didn't recognize the issues of power in a hypothetical scenario they have never been in. Heck, I myself constantly learn and start to see them in cases I never considered before. Different perspective changes everything, and there are perspectives I simply never witnessed until someone told me about them!
> That's not a bad point. But then it turns out that it's not really connected to the statements about Minsky, is it?
The statements about Minsky are harmful. What reason is there to be coming to somebody’s defense when they are credibly accused of something like that? Frankly I don’t want friends who would react like Stallman did if I were to be accused as seriously as Minsky has been.
People who are going to do harm because they don’t understand power imbalances should not be leaders. Yes, we’re all bad at something, but if that’s the thing you’re bad at, it’s probably not the place for you in our society. On this I will be firm. It is incumbent on leaders to understand power and take the potential for abuse in situations of power differential seriously. They must be scrupulous. These comments would not be made by someone who is scrupulous about power imbalances.
The statements about Minsky are harmful. What reason is there to be coming to somebody’s defense when they are credibly accused of something like that? Frankly I don’t want friends who would react like Stallman did if I were to be accused as seriously as Minsky has been.
People who are going to do harm because they don’t understand power imbalances should not be leaders. Yes, we’re all bad at something, but if that’s the thing you’re bad at, it’s probably not the place for you in our society. On this I will be firm. It is incumbent on leaders to understand power and take the potential for abuse in situations of power differential seriously. They must be scrupulous. These comments would not be made by someone who is scrupulous about power imbalances.
[deleted]
That’s such a ridiculous viewpoint. Someone should be disqualified from being a “public figure” for making bad off-the-cuff remarks?
There goes half of Congress, half of Hollywood, many historic figures, and a fair share of executives. How can someone be “disqualified” from being a “public figure” anyway!???!
There goes half of Congress, half of Hollywood, many historic figures, and a fair share of executives. How can someone be “disqualified” from being a “public figure” anyway!???!
> There goes half of Congress, half of Hollywood, many historic figures, and a fair share of executives.
I mean, yeah.
I mean, yeah.
As if the people who replaced them would be any more pure.
Once these are the standards, literally everyone is guilty, and who gets thrown under the bus is a matter of attention rather than guilt.
Once these are the standards, literally everyone is guilty, and who gets thrown under the bus is a matter of attention rather than guilt.
"Half" is one heck of an understatement.
Slander, pretty much.
Fortunately, there's this review of the facts[0].
[0]: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
Fortunately, there's this review of the facts[0].
[0]: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
It's not a great review. First, it focuses on the email exchange about Minksy. I absolutely agree that RMS's words there were blatantly lied about to make him look bad. RMS absolutely should have shut up sooner in that thread, but he didn't say anything terribly objectionable.
But I stopped reading your link once the author did exactly what he railed on everyone else for doing: misquoting and taking quotes out of context to support their view.
The author tries to defend RMS's views on pedophilia by pointing out that the Dutch article that RMS links to only talks about reducing the age of consent from 16 to 12, and that wouldn't constitute pedophilia. (A conclusion I'm not sure I agree with, but let's pretend I do.) But, nope, shoulda kept on quoting, because two sentences later there's: "The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether." Nope, not ok.
Your linked article also repeatedly says things like, "All those questionable quotes seem very reasonable when put in context." Well, I disagree. After reading the full quotes, I still find most of them unreasonable.
But I stopped reading your link once the author did exactly what he railed on everyone else for doing: misquoting and taking quotes out of context to support their view.
The author tries to defend RMS's views on pedophilia by pointing out that the Dutch article that RMS links to only talks about reducing the age of consent from 16 to 12, and that wouldn't constitute pedophilia. (A conclusion I'm not sure I agree with, but let's pretend I do.) But, nope, shoulda kept on quoting, because two sentences later there's: "The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether." Nope, not ok.
Your linked article also repeatedly says things like, "All those questionable quotes seem very reasonable when put in context." Well, I disagree. After reading the full quotes, I still find most of them unreasonable.
> disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader
A lot of people can't do their jobs if they can't be leaders, depending on how you define it. I think that jobs that don't involve interacting with other people are being automated faster on average than jobs that do. So I think it's better not to be quick to disqualify someone from it.
A lot of people can't do their jobs if they can't be leaders, depending on how you define it. I think that jobs that don't involve interacting with other people are being automated faster on average than jobs that do. So I think it's better not to be quick to disqualify someone from it.
> disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader
Well, to be honest the 'imaleader' bar is pretty low at this moment. New leaders should try to distance themselves from most previous leader's behavior. Expectations about public figures are really far from reality.
Well, to be honest the 'imaleader' bar is pretty low at this moment. New leaders should try to distance themselves from most previous leader's behavior. Expectations about public figures are really far from reality.
There are a lot of softer definitions of leader, but we need not go into them as the topic on hand is a man getting a board position at an influential organization.
[deleted]
>Being unusual does not free you from the burdens of being a decent person...
A decent person is a flawed, inherently subjective target. Obviously, from the fact that you're disagreeing with GP's sentiment demonstrates the two of you have different criteria for that.
>...The kind of person RMS has shown himself to be, regardless of diagnosis, disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader.
That's kind of funny. RMS has stayed honest to his principles; remained a consistent advocate for the fundamental freedoms of software and computer users; he's taken being made the butt of fantastically, even when i the midst of a highly controversial media circus, advocated for calm, encouraged waiting for the facts to roll in, and stayed true to the tenant of U.S. jurisprudence that someone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's pretty decent in my book.
He has odd proclivities. He clashes. He's weird, he doesn't exactly have a mental pole vault down, but he has the courage to challenge what no one else will, and the presence of mind when confronted with new information to change his views, and preserve his earlier errors for posterity. That's also decency.
Frankly, your post strikes me as able-ist. You quite literally made a low-key assertion that the neurodivergent, by virtue of their divergence, don't deserve or should be disqualified from leadership.
As a functioning neurodivergent in a leadership position myself, I find that patently offensive.
Do you understand just how challenging it can be to just different enough where you see a problem that needs to be stood against when no-one else does? How hard it can be to comprehend and keep up a facade that doesn't come to you naturally? To be successful by everyone else's measure, when objectively speaking you're not just excelling in your field or endeavor, but also doing it without everything everyone else takes for granted, difficulty even recognizing encouragement, no guarantee that any normal gesture of endearment or inclusion amongst normal people will find it's mark, or the pain that comes from having to be 100% up front with people, that you may end up saying something they'll take poorly, and knowing you may not even get a good or fair chance to make amends? That when things do hit the fan, you have to work 140% harder to navigate a world completely unnatural and unituitive to you?
I get your message. I reject your assertion, however, that you can measure someone with a disability without taking it into account. I've lived that life. I constantly have to just let things go because "ya just won't get it til you live it." I've fought hard to thrive in a normal world, and with an internal locus of control accepted that more often than not, I'll end up having to be the one to take the high road to maintain the peace. I've had to survive the nights of loved ones being hurt because I just didn't have the energy to take that high road. I've made sacrifices in my personal life to be deemed "appropriate" in everyone else's eyes, and suffered the existential price and inauthenticity, and self-loathing that comes people's poor response to me at my most vulnerable.
Which is why your post strikes such a chord.
I shouldn't have to. Neither should he.
RMS asks. He'll actually ask people whether he can stay, Whether they are comfortable, and when those people say yes, and get exposed to the realities of a neurodivergent unmasked, suddenly change their tune. You can argue he doesn't ask often enough, or that he makes folks uncomfortable by the level of directness required, but that he stays authentic tohimself makes him more worthy of being a leader than even I. He's at least up front about it, and doesn't hide the crazy to the point of being destructive like some tend to. He also doesn't judge others for simply being difficult to understand.
So congratulations. Ya got a rise out of me.
A decent person is a flawed, inherently subjective target. Obviously, from the fact that you're disagreeing with GP's sentiment demonstrates the two of you have different criteria for that.
>...The kind of person RMS has shown himself to be, regardless of diagnosis, disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader.
That's kind of funny. RMS has stayed honest to his principles; remained a consistent advocate for the fundamental freedoms of software and computer users; he's taken being made the butt of fantastically, even when i the midst of a highly controversial media circus, advocated for calm, encouraged waiting for the facts to roll in, and stayed true to the tenant of U.S. jurisprudence that someone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's pretty decent in my book.
He has odd proclivities. He clashes. He's weird, he doesn't exactly have a mental pole vault down, but he has the courage to challenge what no one else will, and the presence of mind when confronted with new information to change his views, and preserve his earlier errors for posterity. That's also decency.
Frankly, your post strikes me as able-ist. You quite literally made a low-key assertion that the neurodivergent, by virtue of their divergence, don't deserve or should be disqualified from leadership.
As a functioning neurodivergent in a leadership position myself, I find that patently offensive.
Do you understand just how challenging it can be to just different enough where you see a problem that needs to be stood against when no-one else does? How hard it can be to comprehend and keep up a facade that doesn't come to you naturally? To be successful by everyone else's measure, when objectively speaking you're not just excelling in your field or endeavor, but also doing it without everything everyone else takes for granted, difficulty even recognizing encouragement, no guarantee that any normal gesture of endearment or inclusion amongst normal people will find it's mark, or the pain that comes from having to be 100% up front with people, that you may end up saying something they'll take poorly, and knowing you may not even get a good or fair chance to make amends? That when things do hit the fan, you have to work 140% harder to navigate a world completely unnatural and unituitive to you?
I get your message. I reject your assertion, however, that you can measure someone with a disability without taking it into account. I've lived that life. I constantly have to just let things go because "ya just won't get it til you live it." I've fought hard to thrive in a normal world, and with an internal locus of control accepted that more often than not, I'll end up having to be the one to take the high road to maintain the peace. I've had to survive the nights of loved ones being hurt because I just didn't have the energy to take that high road. I've made sacrifices in my personal life to be deemed "appropriate" in everyone else's eyes, and suffered the existential price and inauthenticity, and self-loathing that comes people's poor response to me at my most vulnerable.
Which is why your post strikes such a chord.
I shouldn't have to. Neither should he.
RMS asks. He'll actually ask people whether he can stay, Whether they are comfortable, and when those people say yes, and get exposed to the realities of a neurodivergent unmasked, suddenly change their tune. You can argue he doesn't ask often enough, or that he makes folks uncomfortable by the level of directness required, but that he stays authentic tohimself makes him more worthy of being a leader than even I. He's at least up front about it, and doesn't hide the crazy to the point of being destructive like some tend to. He also doesn't judge others for simply being difficult to understand.
So congratulations. Ya got a rise out of me.
So you want no one autistic to ever be in a position of leadership?
Not every autistic person is an asshole
but every person that falsely accuse an autistic of something he hasn't done, is.
Indeed autism poses a challenge for a person in a leadership position. One facet of autism is difficulty in certain social interactions and that difficulty can cause real harm to people. You shouldn't prejudge a person because of a diagnosis, nor should you pre-acquit.
You can embrace acceptance that people are different and realize that differences make some people better and worse for certain things.
You can embrace acceptance that people are different and realize that differences make some people better and worse for certain things.
>You can embrace acceptance that people are different and realize that differences make some people better and worse for certain things.
I find it astonishing that blatant abelism like yours is acceptable in polite society.
>You can embrace acceptance that genders are different and realize that differences make some genders better and worse for certain things.
>You can embrace acceptance that races are different and realize that differences make some races better and worse for certain things.
I find it astonishing that blatant abelism like yours is acceptable in polite society.
>You can embrace acceptance that genders are different and realize that differences make some genders better and worse for certain things.
>You can embrace acceptance that races are different and realize that differences make some races better and worse for certain things.
I thought that the parent post was diplomatic and well hedged, given the sensitivity of the subject material: "one facet [...] certain interactions [...] can cause [...]." Furthermore, the thesis that biology affects fitness is well established and is indeed essential to the process of evolution.
Nature cannot be discounted, but, as I think you intend to emphasize, it's not the end of the discussion when humans can do so much at the application layer.
> [...] acceptance that genders are different [...]
Males are going to have a hard time being wet nurses.
> [...] races are different [...]
The San and Inuit people have some very useful adaptations for their respective extreme environments.
It's kind of challenging to take sweeping offense to a statement phrased using an existential quantifier.
> [...] acceptance that genders are different [...]
Males are going to have a hard time being wet nurses.
> [...] races are different [...]
The San and Inuit people have some very useful adaptations for their respective extreme environments.
It's kind of challenging to take sweeping offense to a statement phrased using an existential quantifier.
Is it ableist to suggest that blind people don't make good air traffic controllers, that paralysed people don't make the best bicycle couriers or that a deaf person is perhaps not a suitable music critic? Everyone works within the limitations of our abilities, and some people are dealt difficult hands - but reality doesn't care about your feelings.
The key to not discriminating based on ability is to be sure you are endeavoring to enable a person to do something to the best of their abilities and not insisting that the only people allowed to do something are those who are best suited for it. But there is a separation between "not an ideal candidate for this job" and "not reasonably able to do this job".
Indeed, sometimes the person with the disability can be better at the job because of what they have learned in an effort to overcome - this is why you don't just slap a label on a person and declare them unfit because they match a description.
Being tolerant, respecting differences, however you want to put it does not mean being blind to outcomes.
People sometimes don't get this.
Indeed, sometimes the person with the disability can be better at the job because of what they have learned in an effort to overcome - this is why you don't just slap a label on a person and declare them unfit because they match a description.
Being tolerant, respecting differences, however you want to put it does not mean being blind to outcomes.
People sometimes don't get this.
You should try to convince people Beethoven's music sucks because he was deaf. There's really no reason a deaf person can't be great with music.
Irrelevant to the topic, but he only went deaf at the end of his life.
I believe it is a reasonable assumption that someone would have a hard time composing music if he/she were born deaf.
I believe it is a reasonable assumption that someone would have a hard time composing music if he/she were born deaf.
The context isn't an autistic person being great at people but getting sidelined for the label of autistic so Beethoven seems a bit irrelevant.
Accepting people to be weird is not the same thing as accepting people to be insensitive assholes. Especially not in leadership positions.
Has RMS ever been formally diagnosed as autistic, or is it just the perception/defense of armchair physicians?
He said he isn't autistic in 2008.[1] I haven't seen anything about him getting diagnosed since then.
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
Which statements?
It's sad that the media outlets and "Woke Twitter", etc, were misquoting him saying he was defending Jeffrey Epstein and doing everything they could to get him fired from the FSF, etc.
What's even worse was none of these "WOKE" were even concerned with "the victims of sexual assault" or any other noble cause. This was organized for ideological reasons and their goal was and is to replace everyone in a relevant position with ideologically aligned people. They are the kind of people that believe that any speech or freedoms that run counter to their agenda should be regulated to fit their definition of a common good.
He did nothing wrong. He is a brilliant person.
What's even worse was none of these "WOKE" were even concerned with "the victims of sexual assault" or any other noble cause. This was organized for ideological reasons and their goal was and is to replace everyone in a relevant position with ideologically aligned people. They are the kind of people that believe that any speech or freedoms that run counter to their agenda should be regulated to fit their definition of a common good.
He did nothing wrong. He is a brilliant person.
The worst part is that the blog post that started a lot of that literally quoted RMS one sentence and the rephrased it as something completely different in the very next sentence. And nobody called them out for it.
He basically just said "Minsky may not have known because Epstein most likely forced the girl into acting as if her was willing" (paraphrased from memory) and it got turned into "RMS said the girl was willing".
He basically just said "Minsky may not have known because Epstein most likely forced the girl into acting as if her was willing" (paraphrased from memory) and it got turned into "RMS said the girl was willing".
Those who read the extensive threads back in 2019 will remember that Minsky, at the time, commented to one of his associates about the interaction with the young woman. That’s how Stallman heard of it.
And, further, there is no evidence that Minsky took any further action relative to her. Quite the contrary - he seemed bemused by the situation.
Some of the discussion in these threads strongly implies that Minsky had a sexual interaction and that Stallman was defending him. This is wrong, in both cases.
And, further, there is no evidence that Minsky took any further action relative to her. Quite the contrary - he seemed bemused by the situation.
Some of the discussion in these threads strongly implies that Minsky had a sexual interaction and that Stallman was defending him. This is wrong, in both cases.
Source please?
Minsky’s wife denied the allegations.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/jeffrey-epsteins-alleged-sex-s...
You will have to dig out the 2019 emails yourself, I didn’t bookmark them.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/jeffrey-epsteins-alleged-sex-s...
You will have to dig out the 2019 emails yourself, I didn’t bookmark them.
Eyewitness: Minsky rebuffed her
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
What Stallman said verbatim:
>The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
We'll set aside for a moment that he's trying to argue the only way that sexual assault can occur is if the attacker literally assaults the victim. It wasn't really the time or the place to try defending a friend by arguing semantics given the accusations.
I guess if some billionaire flew me to a private island in the Carribean where young attractive girls started throwing themselves at me, and I was the age and... attractiveness of Minsky, giant alarm bells would have been blaring in my head and I think that of pretty much every sane American male. To not take the entirety of the situation into account and try to paint it as an innocent "I met a girl at the bar who lied about how old she was" is more than a bit disingenuous
>The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
We'll set aside for a moment that he's trying to argue the only way that sexual assault can occur is if the attacker literally assaults the victim. It wasn't really the time or the place to try defending a friend by arguing semantics given the accusations.
I guess if some billionaire flew me to a private island in the Carribean where young attractive girls started throwing themselves at me, and I was the age and... attractiveness of Minsky, giant alarm bells would have been blaring in my head and I think that of pretty much every sane American male. To not take the entirety of the situation into account and try to paint it as an innocent "I met a girl at the bar who lied about how old she was" is more than a bit disingenuous
> I guess if some billionaire flew me to a private island in the Carribean where young attractive girls started throwing themselves at me, and I was the age and... attractiveness of Minsky, giant alarm bells would have been blaring in my head [...]
As you may or may not know, some women will voluntarily have sex with men in exchange for money, no coercion or assault required. If a billionaire flew you to a private island with attractive woman offering to have sex with you, then the presumption that those women are paid prostitutes is not that far-fetched.
As you may or may not know, some women will voluntarily have sex with men in exchange for money, no coercion or assault required. If a billionaire flew you to a private island with attractive woman offering to have sex with you, then the presumption that those women are paid prostitutes is not that far-fetched.
[deleted]
>As you may or may not know, some women will voluntarily have sex with men in exchange for money, no coercion or assault required.
Which is also illegal. And if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on. Which as a 60-year-old - you should know better. Period.
>If a billionaire flew you to a private island with attractive woman offering to have sex with you, then the presumption that those women are paid prostitutes is not that far-fetched.
So... sex trafficking. By definition. Which is illegal both where it took place and in all party's country of origin.
Which is also illegal. And if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on. Which as a 60-year-old - you should know better. Period.
>If a billionaire flew you to a private island with attractive woman offering to have sex with you, then the presumption that those women are paid prostitutes is not that far-fetched.
So... sex trafficking. By definition. Which is illegal both where it took place and in all party's country of origin.
> Which is also illegal.
Where? Even within the US, prostitution laws vary wildly.
> And if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on.
Did Minsky know that they weren't adults? Do you have a source for that?
> So... sex trafficking. By definition.
Wrong. Not even by definition. If you disagree, show me a valid definition of sex trafficking that includes "flying to an island to have sex with voluntary prostitutes".
Where? Even within the US, prostitution laws vary wildly.
> And if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on.
Did Minsky know that they weren't adults? Do you have a source for that?
> So... sex trafficking. By definition.
Wrong. Not even by definition. If you disagree, show me a valid definition of sex trafficking that includes "flying to an island to have sex with voluntary prostitutes".
>Where? Even within the US, prostitution laws vary wildly.
I guess it's fortunate we have that information:
Minsky is from Massachusets: illegal. Guifreye and Epstein Florida: illegal. Little St. James: illegal.
>Did Minsky know that they weren't adults? Do you have a source for that?
You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop. The fact that AT BEST he knew she was a prostitute being sex trafficked makes it worse.
>Wrong. Not even by definition. If you disagree, show me a valid definition of sex trafficking that includes "flying to an island to have sex with voluntary prostitutes".
It is LITERALLY the definition:
>the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex
I guess it's fortunate we have that information:
Minsky is from Massachusets: illegal. Guifreye and Epstein Florida: illegal. Little St. James: illegal.
>Did Minsky know that they weren't adults? Do you have a source for that?
You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop. The fact that AT BEST he knew she was a prostitute being sex trafficked makes it worse.
>Wrong. Not even by definition. If you disagree, show me a valid definition of sex trafficking that includes "flying to an island to have sex with voluntary prostitutes".
It is LITERALLY the definition:
>the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex
> You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop.
You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass".
> It is LITERALLY the definition: the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex
That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors.
You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass".
> It is LITERALLY the definition: the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex
That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors.
>You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass".
I didn't shift my claim in the least, you attempted to imply that prostitution is legal. I pointed out that regardless of the fact you're wrong, and it isn't legal, it's disgusting. No goal post was moved, you just keep doubling down on something that is both morally reprehensible AND illegal.
>That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors.
Except it doesn't. In fact the law states the exact opposite of your claim. You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/787.06
>(g) For commercial sexual activity in which any child under the age of 18 is involved commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In a prosecution under this paragraph in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person who was subject to human trafficking, the state need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.
I didn't shift my claim in the least, you attempted to imply that prostitution is legal. I pointed out that regardless of the fact you're wrong, and it isn't legal, it's disgusting. No goal post was moved, you just keep doubling down on something that is both morally reprehensible AND illegal.
>That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors.
Except it doesn't. In fact the law states the exact opposite of your claim. You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/787.06
>(g) For commercial sexual activity in which any child under the age of 18 is involved commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In a prosecution under this paragraph in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person who was subject to human trafficking, the state need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.
> You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here.
This is what's wrong with public discourse in the current cancel culture climate: One cannot even discuss facts without being accused of defending the worst kinds of criminals. Way to go! What's next, are you going to accuse me of being a potential sexual predator if I don't shut up?
This is what's wrong with public discourse in the current cancel culture climate: One cannot even discuss facts without being accused of defending the worst kinds of criminals. Way to go! What's next, are you going to accuse me of being a potential sexual predator if I don't shut up?
> A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting.
Sure, but from all accounts I've seen, its not even clear that he did sleep with her. It seems likely that he did not.
But its really not uncommon for older guys to be with young (usually 20's) women, look at older male actors. The lady in question was 17 IIRC, its not inconceivable to me that a 17 year old could be mistaken for early 20's.
I mean, I personally still think that's wrong, but my point is that it totally does happen, without any coercion or anything like that, so that it could also happen when someone underage is mistaken for someone slightly older, especially if groomed and coerced by Epstein, doesn't seem inconceivable to me.
Doesn't make it right, but its more nuanced than "he's old therefore he should have known she was coerced" (and again, apparently he didn't actually do anything anyway).
Sure, but from all accounts I've seen, its not even clear that he did sleep with her. It seems likely that he did not.
But its really not uncommon for older guys to be with young (usually 20's) women, look at older male actors. The lady in question was 17 IIRC, its not inconceivable to me that a 17 year old could be mistaken for early 20's.
I mean, I personally still think that's wrong, but my point is that it totally does happen, without any coercion or anything like that, so that it could also happen when someone underage is mistaken for someone slightly older, especially if groomed and coerced by Epstein, doesn't seem inconceivable to me.
Doesn't make it right, but its more nuanced than "he's old therefore he should have known she was coerced" (and again, apparently he didn't actually do anything anyway).
if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on
Once in a year I end up in a local strip club (non-US; never had sex or something there, but it’s not uncommon for guests to “continue elsewhere”). Spoke with many of girls, and they are usually not poor or orphaned, it’s just the way of life. “Don’t wanna to sit in office for a mediocre pay”. They are yesterday’s teenagers who sometimes earn as much as local software guys or lawyers in their 30s.
Which as a 60-year-old - you should know better
As such an experienced person you’d know how different people are and how many world niches exist beyond a “normal life”.
Once in a year I end up in a local strip club (non-US; never had sex or something there, but it’s not uncommon for guests to “continue elsewhere”). Spoke with many of girls, and they are usually not poor or orphaned, it’s just the way of life. “Don’t wanna to sit in office for a mediocre pay”. They are yesterday’s teenagers who sometimes earn as much as local software guys or lawyers in their 30s.
Which as a 60-year-old - you should know better
As such an experienced person you’d know how different people are and how many world niches exist beyond a “normal life”.
I know a number of musicians and DJ's and some women will voluntarily have sex with them, just because they have some small amount of fame. Not even money is required.
[deleted]
> We'll set aside for a moment that he's trying to argue the only way that sexual assault can occur is if the attacker literally assaults the victim.
So was it figurative assault or do words not have literal meaning anymore?
So was it figurative assault or do words not have literal meaning anymore?
[deleted]
Yes, the full quote with context makes it worse, not better.
Does it tho? There's definitely a difference between having sex with a 17yo when you think it's consentual without knowing someone else is forcing her in the background vs. forcing her yourself. Although I personally don't believe it, it is theoretically possible that Minsky didn't know - pointing that out, especially when very little information was available, seems at worst insensitive, but sounds mainly like a very logic-driven mind taking the presumption of innocence very seriously.
He also had a very good point about making the distinction between "sexual relations with a minor" and "sexual assault"/"rape" - again, I agree that both should be illegal and punushed harshly, but is having consentual sex with a 17yo really AS BAD as forcing yourself upon a person of any age?
As for his last point about the absurdity of the exact same thing being rape if done today, but perfectly normal if done mere days later: isn't it kinda absurd? Like, yes, there needs to be a boundary, but isn't it insane that there are only two categories: <18 is one of the worst crimes possible and >18 is perfectly legal. I don't know a better system and wouldn't even attempt to propose a better one, but surely this isn't the best we can do?
To be clear: I don't particularly like Stallman and gladly point out his sexist and generally rude remarks and behavior when people glorify him, but this all just seems like a person only looking at the logical side of the story and ending up sounding extremely insensitive. The term "neurodivergent" would usually get thrown in here, although I'm reluctant to use it since it's far too broad and I don't have any specific information about RMS.
Inappropriate and insensitive? Yes! Defending rape, as some media outlets framed it? Not even close!
He also had a very good point about making the distinction between "sexual relations with a minor" and "sexual assault"/"rape" - again, I agree that both should be illegal and punushed harshly, but is having consentual sex with a 17yo really AS BAD as forcing yourself upon a person of any age?
As for his last point about the absurdity of the exact same thing being rape if done today, but perfectly normal if done mere days later: isn't it kinda absurd? Like, yes, there needs to be a boundary, but isn't it insane that there are only two categories: <18 is one of the worst crimes possible and >18 is perfectly legal. I don't know a better system and wouldn't even attempt to propose a better one, but surely this isn't the best we can do?
To be clear: I don't particularly like Stallman and gladly point out his sexist and generally rude remarks and behavior when people glorify him, but this all just seems like a person only looking at the logical side of the story and ending up sounding extremely insensitive. The term "neurodivergent" would usually get thrown in here, although I'm reluctant to use it since it's far too broad and I don't have any specific information about RMS.
Inappropriate and insensitive? Yes! Defending rape, as some media outlets framed it? Not even close!
Minsky was an obese, balding old man. To imply that he should have expected or not had even a tiny bit of concern that an attractive young woman on a private island was throwing herself at him is ridiculous.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lomkCENpPXufPOLUkw6mzlgBljQ=...
If I were in my 60s and a 17 year old child was throwing themselves at me for sex, I would question what was going on. The fact it was on a private island in the middle of the Caribbean makes the feigned ignorance laughable. There's no planet on which the circumstances should have left Minsky with any doubt about what he was getting himself into.
I'll just say this HN: shame on you. The fact there are so many people here willing to defend someone that was participating in sex trafficking is pretty disgusting. I have no time for "cancel culture" or "SJW's" but this isn't even a little bit that. There's no planet on which Minsky didn't know exactly what he was doing. To defend those actions is honestly pretty abhorrent. I hope none of you have daughters, and if you do I hope you think long and hard about how you'd feel if they were in that situation.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lomkCENpPXufPOLUkw6mzlgBljQ=...
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64985749/588157678.jpg.6.jpg){kind=link}
If I were in my 60s and a 17 year old child was throwing themselves at me for sex, I would question what was going on. The fact it was on a private island in the middle of the Caribbean makes the feigned ignorance laughable. There's no planet on which the circumstances should have left Minsky with any doubt about what he was getting himself into.
I'll just say this HN: shame on you. The fact there are so many people here willing to defend someone that was participating in sex trafficking is pretty disgusting. I have no time for "cancel culture" or "SJW's" but this isn't even a little bit that. There's no planet on which Minsky didn't know exactly what he was doing. To defend those actions is honestly pretty abhorrent. I hope none of you have daughters, and if you do I hope you think long and hard about how you'd feel if they were in that situation.
There's no way for a person to know for sure how old another person is. Many girls at 17 have reached sexual maturity and could be 25 from their looks. Calling a 17yo a "child" is not accurate.
there's a reason stores ask for an id when it comes to selling liquor up into women (and men as well!) 30s. I have no idea about legality about prostitution in the carrabean.
In addition to that, many countries have laws that arent as inane as the US when it comes to sex between teenage minors and adults, for most of Europe it's between 14 and sixteen, although rules for a maximum legal partner age may further restrict this.
I'm not saying I think Minsky was unanware, nor do I say I think his actions are right or even non repelling, but I think it's very clear where rms is coming from.
there's a reason stores ask for an id when it comes to selling liquor up into women (and men as well!) 30s. I have no idea about legality about prostitution in the carrabean.
In addition to that, many countries have laws that arent as inane as the US when it comes to sex between teenage minors and adults, for most of Europe it's between 14 and sixteen, although rules for a maximum legal partner age may further restrict this.
I'm not saying I think Minsky was unanware, nor do I say I think his actions are right or even non repelling, but I think it's very clear where rms is coming from.
Yeah, obviously I don't believe that he though she did it because she liked him.
But there's a big spectrum of possibilities from "she freely accepted payment for it" to "she was kidnapped, tied up and shipped in a crate, then forced under threat of violence". Before we knew Epstein was a monster, her being a very highly-paid prostitute would've seemed like the more likely explanation.
We need a term for people in between "creep" and "monster" - judging by this specific example, Minsky was in that middle. Maybe he did know exactly what was happening in the background and that would make him a monster, but I don't think that information was available at the time.
But there's a big spectrum of possibilities from "she freely accepted payment for it" to "she was kidnapped, tied up and shipped in a crate, then forced under threat of violence". Before we knew Epstein was a monster, her being a very highly-paid prostitute would've seemed like the more likely explanation.
We need a term for people in between "creep" and "monster" - judging by this specific example, Minsky was in that middle. Maybe he did know exactly what was happening in the background and that would make him a monster, but I don't think that information was available at the time.
I know a bunch of musicians and DJ's and many of them are.. not good looking.. but young (legal but not by that much) women still often throw themselves at them, just because they have some perceived prestige or fame or something. It does happen more than you might like to think, without anything nefarious going on.
> he fact there are so many people here willing to defend someone that was participating in sex trafficking is pretty disgusting.
Nobody is defending Epstein. If anything, we're arguing that the blame lies squarely with him and that he was an evil, sick man.
I'm not even really arguing on Minsky's behalf, although given the reports I've heard that he didn't actually engage in sex and given what I said above, and the fact that she most definitely was groomed and coerced to act a certain way, its not at all a given that he's guilty. Maybe he is, but we don't know. Also, as f1refly says, age is hard to judge. I personally find it impossible to tell many ages apart. Maybe if you put a 17 year old and a 25 year old side by side I could, but in isolation, many look more or less the same to me. Of course, I'm also not having sex with that age group. Still, telling what age someone is can be very hard and 17 year olds do often look older.
What I'm arguing is that the comments RMS made were not at all bad and taken completely out of context (and outright changed!) to demonize him.
> he fact there are so many people here willing to defend someone that was participating in sex trafficking is pretty disgusting.
Nobody is defending Epstein. If anything, we're arguing that the blame lies squarely with him and that he was an evil, sick man.
I'm not even really arguing on Minsky's behalf, although given the reports I've heard that he didn't actually engage in sex and given what I said above, and the fact that she most definitely was groomed and coerced to act a certain way, its not at all a given that he's guilty. Maybe he is, but we don't know. Also, as f1refly says, age is hard to judge. I personally find it impossible to tell many ages apart. Maybe if you put a 17 year old and a 25 year old side by side I could, but in isolation, many look more or less the same to me. Of course, I'm also not having sex with that age group. Still, telling what age someone is can be very hard and 17 year olds do often look older.
What I'm arguing is that the comments RMS made were not at all bad and taken completely out of context (and outright changed!) to demonize him.
How? The full quote says that she presented her in a way that Epstein groomed and coerced her to. That is, the blame for anything that may have happened is clearly on Epstein. How does that make it worse?
Indeed, the woke are nearly always lying in cancel cases (at the very least by omission, often directly) and engaging in blatant defamation.
Many cases could be taken to court, even in the USA with its relaxed defamation laws.
Many cases could be taken to court, even in the USA with its relaxed defamation laws.
There's a reason wokeism is fastest growing religion in the world.
If they keep eating one another so publicly and randomly, they won't achieve the necessary internal stability.
Successful authoritarian movements have a clear set of rules that make you safe as a member, and only turn to internal purges once they destroyed any external opposition.
Successful authoritarian movements have a clear set of rules that make you safe as a member, and only turn to internal purges once they destroyed any external opposition.
What is the reason?
I believe it is natural human social behaviour that is simply emerging again after a long quiet period after the dissolution of organized religion. IMO, all the horrible mob mentality and violence that used to be blamed on religion, really didn't have much to do with religion or its associated belief system.. rather it's just ugly group and social dynamics that reemerge the moment people come back together under any umbrella. Turning away from religion wasn't the achievement we estimated it to be, much of the problematic elements associated with it persist unabated.
Even non-religious people have been saying for _generations_ that mass turning away from religion without redirecting the genuine human needs it fulfills was going to be trouble.
How dare you use neurodivergent people as a shield for a sexual harasser.
How dare you.
How dare you.
Neurodivergence does not excuse you for being called out for toxic behaviour. You're still responsible for your own actions, and to be very blunt, if your neurodivergence is that troublesome you should not be in power. I mean a lot of leaders have a neurodivergent condition where they don't give a shit about their subjects or employees (psychopathy), all they care about is themselves, their coke addiction, and making money for themselves and their shareholders.
Just because you're autistic doesn't mean you're not responsible for the things you do or say.
Just because you're autistic doesn't mean you're not responsible for the things you do or say.
You know what? Fuck it. I’ve been putting it off too long. I’m installing https://templeos.org/ tonight.
There's a difference between supporting people struggling with, let's say, alcoholism, and hiring an alcoholic as your head of PR so that he can throw up on people in front of camera.
> But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism tha
rms has repeatedly said he does not suffer from autism.
Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders.
rms has repeatedly said he does not suffer from autism.
Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders.
>Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders.
Where, exactly, did RMS do so? This isn't a troll or a "gotcha" either.
All the claims about RMS doing so are from now public statements by RMS. Please provide (with appropriate context) evidence for the assertion that RMS tried to "legitimize child sexual offenders."
If you perform that exercise in good faith, you'll find that there is no evidence that RMS did (or attempted) any such thing.
I don't know RMS, nor am I associated with any organization with which he is or ever was associated. In fact, I was quite angry when I read the accusations against him.
But rather than take the word of others, I read his statements, in context, and came to the conclusion that those accusations were both false and sensationalized.
I have my suspicions as to why those false and sensationalized accusations were made, but I won't do what those who sought to portray Stallman as an advocate for pedophilia, rape and assault did.
I'll let others make up their own minds as to the motivations of the folks who sought to amplify such claims.
Edit: Clarified the reasons for not airing my suspicions in this comment.
Where, exactly, did RMS do so? This isn't a troll or a "gotcha" either.
All the claims about RMS doing so are from now public statements by RMS. Please provide (with appropriate context) evidence for the assertion that RMS tried to "legitimize child sexual offenders."
If you perform that exercise in good faith, you'll find that there is no evidence that RMS did (or attempted) any such thing.
I don't know RMS, nor am I associated with any organization with which he is or ever was associated. In fact, I was quite angry when I read the accusations against him.
But rather than take the word of others, I read his statements, in context, and came to the conclusion that those accusations were both false and sensationalized.
I have my suspicions as to why those false and sensationalized accusations were made, but I won't do what those who sought to portray Stallman as an advocate for pedophilia, rape and assault did.
I'll let others make up their own minds as to the motivations of the folks who sought to amplify such claims.
Edit: Clarified the reasons for not airing my suspicions in this comment.
Stallman said pedophilia is "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] He must have meant the act because the paraphilia isn't illegal. He dismissed people who believe children can't consent as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing".[2] He didn't mean adolescents.[3]
Having sex with a child is an offense in most countries.[4] Offender means someone who commits an offense.
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...()
[2] https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
[3] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201...
Having sex with a child is an offense in most countries.[4] Offender means someone who commits an offense.
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...()
[2] https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
[3] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201...
You have ignored and omitted context from each of the statements you linked above.
And so I can only assume you're not posting in good faith. That's sad, as it's something I really like about HN.
I had responded in detail to each of the claims you made and expounded on the fact that age of consent is wildly different in all those countries you mention. Sadly, it was all lost with a <ctrl>-w[1] in Firefox.
In fact, in 20 US states, there is no lower limit on the age of marriage[0], which explicitly allows sexual activity.
I don't expect anything from you. I'm just disappointed in the (I can only assume deliberate) way you omitted and distorted Stallman's statements to suit your point of view. That's sad.
[0] https://www.equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us
[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1238895
And so I can only assume you're not posting in good faith. That's sad, as it's something I really like about HN.
I had responded in detail to each of the claims you made and expounded on the fact that age of consent is wildly different in all those countries you mention. Sadly, it was all lost with a <ctrl>-w[1] in Firefox.
In fact, in 20 US states, there is no lower limit on the age of marriage[0], which explicitly allows sexual activity.
I don't expect anything from you. I'm just disappointed in the (I can only assume deliberate) way you omitted and distorted Stallman's statements to suit your point of view. That's sad.
[0] https://www.equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us
[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1238895
I'm not trying to convince you. You already said no one could reach a different conclusion in good faith. I linked Stallman's comments so other people can decide for themselves.
Maybe you don't like I only mentioned in passing Stallman said anything about consent. But it's irrelevant to the claim he didn't advocate pedophilia. And now he understands why people say children can't consent.[1]
Your source says 20 states have no minimum age "with a parental or judicial waiver". You left out that detail. The minimum age without a waiver is 18 or over in all states.[2] Wikipedia's source says only 13 states don't have a statutory minimum age. And at least 1 of them has a minimum age through case law.[3]
This usually affects but doesn't necessarily eliminate the age of consent. California has a law against "any lewd or lascivious act" with a child under 14 for example. Spouses aren't exempt.[4]
I didn't mention any countries. But Wikipedia listed only 4 countries with a general age of consent below 13. So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough.
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta...
[3] https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-Sta...
[4] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
Maybe you don't like I only mentioned in passing Stallman said anything about consent. But it's irrelevant to the claim he didn't advocate pedophilia. And now he understands why people say children can't consent.[1]
Your source says 20 states have no minimum age "with a parental or judicial waiver". You left out that detail. The minimum age without a waiver is 18 or over in all states.[2] Wikipedia's source says only 13 states don't have a statutory minimum age. And at least 1 of them has a minimum age through case law.[3]
This usually affects but doesn't necessarily eliminate the age of consent. California has a law against "any lewd or lascivious act" with a child under 14 for example. Spouses aren't exempt.[4]
I didn't mention any countries. But Wikipedia listed only 4 countries with a general age of consent below 13. So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough.
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta...
[3] https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-Sta...
[4] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
>So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough.
You won't get any argument about that from me. Consent is never optional and if an individual isn't able to consent (for whatever reason), then sexual activity with that individual is both inappropriate and, as you pointed out, a crime in most places.
The discussion as to when a person should be legally able to consent to sexual activity is one that's hotly debated and the laws concerning that varies greatly around the world.
Such variation causes a great deal of confusion. I can legally have (consensual) sex with a 12 year-old in Brazil, but in the Virgin Islands, I could go to jail.
But reality is rarely as cut and dried as that. Teenage boys in the US have been branded sex offenders for life because they engaged in consensual sexual activity (and not just sexual acts either. There have been cases where sexting between teenagers has landed children in jail) with teenage girls.
It's wholly inappropriate, and IMHO, should be a crime for adults to manipulate children into sexual activity. Sadly, that happens all too often.
On the larger issue, I expect that we are in violent agreement. However, I choose not to demonize someone for having a conversation about the setting of arbitrary age limits WRT the ability to consent, especially given the wide variation in those arbitrary limits.
It seems clear to me that age limits need to be set to deter the manipulation and abuse of vulnerable individuals (in this case, young people) and it seems unworkable to address those on a case-by-case basis. As such we're back to setting arbitrary limits.
Simply discussing what those limits should be isn't harmful to anyone, and no one should be demonized for just having that conversation.
There's a big difference between contemplating what range of ages should be considered appropriate for consent to sexual activity and actively abusing those without the ability to consent.
To quote the eminent philosopher[0], those two things:
"...ain't the same fucking ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport."
[0] https://youtu.be/TD1CNqghN7Q?t=170
You won't get any argument about that from me. Consent is never optional and if an individual isn't able to consent (for whatever reason), then sexual activity with that individual is both inappropriate and, as you pointed out, a crime in most places.
The discussion as to when a person should be legally able to consent to sexual activity is one that's hotly debated and the laws concerning that varies greatly around the world.
Such variation causes a great deal of confusion. I can legally have (consensual) sex with a 12 year-old in Brazil, but in the Virgin Islands, I could go to jail.
But reality is rarely as cut and dried as that. Teenage boys in the US have been branded sex offenders for life because they engaged in consensual sexual activity (and not just sexual acts either. There have been cases where sexting between teenagers has landed children in jail) with teenage girls.
It's wholly inappropriate, and IMHO, should be a crime for adults to manipulate children into sexual activity. Sadly, that happens all too often.
On the larger issue, I expect that we are in violent agreement. However, I choose not to demonize someone for having a conversation about the setting of arbitrary age limits WRT the ability to consent, especially given the wide variation in those arbitrary limits.
It seems clear to me that age limits need to be set to deter the manipulation and abuse of vulnerable individuals (in this case, young people) and it seems unworkable to address those on a case-by-case basis. As such we're back to setting arbitrary limits.
Simply discussing what those limits should be isn't harmful to anyone, and no one should be demonized for just having that conversation.
There's a big difference between contemplating what range of ages should be considered appropriate for consent to sexual activity and actively abusing those without the ability to consent.
To quote the eminent philosopher[0], those two things:
"...ain't the same fucking ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport."
[0] https://youtu.be/TD1CNqghN7Q?t=170
Naming what someone did isn't demonizing them. And you're portraying what he said as something different than it was.
He didn't engage in conversation. He declared opposing ideas prejudiced and narrow minded. He invented a story about who disagreed with him and mocked them.
When adolescents can consent legally is arbitrary and varies greatly. The idea children too young for puberty lack the understanding and independence to give consent varies not much at all. Even Stallman seems to understand that now. Prosecuting teenagers for sexting is draconian but a different issue completely.
He didn't engage in conversation. He declared opposing ideas prejudiced and narrow minded. He invented a story about who disagreed with him and mocked them.
When adolescents can consent legally is arbitrary and varies greatly. The idea children too young for puberty lack the understanding and independence to give consent varies not much at all. Even Stallman seems to understand that now. Prosecuting teenagers for sexting is draconian but a different issue completely.
>were not illegal or intentionally offensive.
I'm not sure how you can claim to know his intent 18 months after the fact. Do you have an interview or personal relationship to back that claim up? A whole lot of people he directly worked with definitely don't agree with your assessment of his intent.
I don't believe in the time since that he has acknowledged the comments or suggested he didn't mean to offend or that he understands why it was probably a pretty horrible thing to say in light of all the things we know about Epstein.
Accepting someone for their differences: sure. But to imply Stallman is incapable of acknowledging wrongdoing because of autism while simultaneously being qualified to represent the FSF feels like a reach to me.
I'm not sure how you can claim to know his intent 18 months after the fact. Do you have an interview or personal relationship to back that claim up? A whole lot of people he directly worked with definitely don't agree with your assessment of his intent.
I don't believe in the time since that he has acknowledged the comments or suggested he didn't mean to offend or that he understands why it was probably a pretty horrible thing to say in light of all the things we know about Epstein.
Accepting someone for their differences: sure. But to imply Stallman is incapable of acknowledging wrongdoing because of autism while simultaneously being qualified to represent the FSF feels like a reach to me.
No matter the reasons for his way of thinking, but maybe we shouldn’t have a person whose definition of freedom includes raping children on the board of a organization that promotes software freedom.
There is absolutely zero evidence Stallman has autism, none whatsoever, and absolutely no evidence that he has any neurological disability. The fact that he once described himself as “borderline autistic” isn’t evidence of anything (except perhaps that Stallman is a jerk who doesn’t care about people who actually have autism).
As someone who actually has schizophrenia and struggles with it in the workplace and in society: it honestly makes me sick to see people defend Stallman’s reprehensible behavior with some bullshit about “neurodiversity.”
You are throwing an entire population of people under the bus because you’re too immature to accept that RMS is a bad person. It’s pathetic.
As someone who actually has schizophrenia and struggles with it in the workplace and in society: it honestly makes me sick to see people defend Stallman’s reprehensible behavior with some bullshit about “neurodiversity.”
You are throwing an entire population of people under the bus because you’re too immature to accept that RMS is a bad person. It’s pathetic.
In what way is RMS a bad person? He has always seemed pretty honest and well intentioned. Its just he doesn't know when to shut his mouth or which hills are worth dying on.
nicklecompte(4)
Its strange to me that you think RMS has to "prove" that he's autistic (and therefore deserving of sympathy) - but decades of activism and writing about progressive topics (workers rights, trans rights, ending discrimination, improving IP laws, etc) can get undone in a matter of days by anonymous and uncorroborated accusations, and that's totally fine.
You want him to get onstage with his therapist or something?
Look, I'm not exactly Stallman's biggest fan, but everything I read about his firing made it seem like the FSF had a knee-jerk reaction to bad publicity instead of hearing his side of the story and conducting a fair investigation. His reinstatement to the board seems to support the idea that the people there really did want him there but were scared of the mob.
You want him to get onstage with his therapist or something?
Look, I'm not exactly Stallman's biggest fan, but everything I read about his firing made it seem like the FSF had a knee-jerk reaction to bad publicity instead of hearing his side of the story and conducting a fair investigation. His reinstatement to the board seems to support the idea that the people there really did want him there but were scared of the mob.
Stallman himself said he wasn’t autistic[1], so this is really a case of his fans inventing a diagnosis to protect someone who doesn’t deserve it, smearing millions of innocent people in the process. It’s really indefensible. And one of the most frustrating things about bullshit like “RMS can’t help himself because of his autism” is that bullshit never goes away no matter how definitively it is debunked.
I also never suggested that if he did have autism that somehow I would be any more sympathetic. What I am frustrated with is ignorant commenters on Hacker News deciding it’s psychologically easier for them to invent lies and insult people with autism than it is to have an honest reckoning with a hero’s ugly legacy.
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
> "During a 2000 profile for the Toronto Star, Stallman described himself to an interviewer as 'borderline autistic,' a description that goes a long way toward explaining a lifelong tendency toward social and emotional isolation and the equally lifelong effort to overcome it," Williams wrote.
> When I cited that excerpt from the book during the interview, Stallman said that assessment was "exaggerated."
> "I wonder about it, but that's as far as it goes," he said. "Now, it's clear I do not have [Asperger's] -- I don't have most of the characteristics of that. For instance, one of those characteristics is having trouble with rhythm. I love the most complicated, fascinating rhythms." But Stallman did acknowledge that he has "a few of the characteristics" and that he "might have what some people call a 'shadow' version of it."
I also never suggested that if he did have autism that somehow I would be any more sympathetic. What I am frustrated with is ignorant commenters on Hacker News deciding it’s psychologically easier for them to invent lies and insult people with autism than it is to have an honest reckoning with a hero’s ugly legacy.
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
> "During a 2000 profile for the Toronto Star, Stallman described himself to an interviewer as 'borderline autistic,' a description that goes a long way toward explaining a lifelong tendency toward social and emotional isolation and the equally lifelong effort to overcome it," Williams wrote.
> When I cited that excerpt from the book during the interview, Stallman said that assessment was "exaggerated."
> "I wonder about it, but that's as far as it goes," he said. "Now, it's clear I do not have [Asperger's] -- I don't have most of the characteristics of that. For instance, one of those characteristics is having trouble with rhythm. I love the most complicated, fascinating rhythms." But Stallman did acknowledge that he has "a few of the characteristics" and that he "might have what some people call a 'shadow' version of it."
> For instance, one of those characteristics is having trouble with rhythm. I love the most complicated, fascinating rhythms
One can have no "trouble with rhythm" and yet meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD; one can have immense "trouble with rhythm" and yet not meet those criteria – that's because "trouble with rhythm" is not part of the diagnostic criteria, indeed if you read the DSM-5 section on ASD it never even discusses that topic, "trouble with rhythm" simply isn't part of the DSM-5 definition of ASD. At best, it might be seen as an "associated non-diagnostic symptom", something which may occur in some people with ASD (possibly even at a higher rate than in people without ASD); but it is simply a mistake to reason "person X doesn't have symptom Y hence X cannot have ASD" when Y is not a diagnostic symptom.
I don't know whether Stallman has ASD or not, but his conclusion that he doesn't seems to be based on incorrect information. Given that, I don't think we should put much weight on it.
One can have no "trouble with rhythm" and yet meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD; one can have immense "trouble with rhythm" and yet not meet those criteria – that's because "trouble with rhythm" is not part of the diagnostic criteria, indeed if you read the DSM-5 section on ASD it never even discusses that topic, "trouble with rhythm" simply isn't part of the DSM-5 definition of ASD. At best, it might be seen as an "associated non-diagnostic symptom", something which may occur in some people with ASD (possibly even at a higher rate than in people without ASD); but it is simply a mistake to reason "person X doesn't have symptom Y hence X cannot have ASD" when Y is not a diagnostic symptom.
I don't know whether Stallman has ASD or not, but his conclusion that he doesn't seems to be based on incorrect information. Given that, I don't think we should put much weight on it.
"For instance, one of those characteristics is having trouble with rhythm. I love the most complicated, fascinating rhythms."
Somehow I can't shake the feeling that his example supporting his confident self-diagnosis paradoxically undercuts it instead.
Somehow I can't shake the feeling that his example supporting his confident self-diagnosis paradoxically undercuts it instead.
It's worth noting that we went a long way when it comes to diagnosing autism/ASD/ADD since 2000 or even 2008 and we know that lots of neurodiversive people remained undiagnosed because of mismatching characteristics (especially among young girls). Also, Stallman suffers from hyperacusis, which is clearly described in "Free as in Freedom". Setting a diagnosis is a job for a specialist, but his acknowledgement of "a few of the characteristics" may actually be a much stronger hint than you believe (or even he does, especially if the main example he gives is the one about rhythm :P).
Well, that is pretty damning. If he says he's not autistic then people should stop saying he is. I don't think anyone here is trying to insult others with autism, though.
They might not be trying to insult people with autism but they certainly succeeded. And “it wasn’t malice, it was reckless indifference and dishonesty” isn’t a good defense.
So being “neurodivergent” gives him a pass to dismiss statutory rape and pubescent teens having sex or being chill with the viewing or collecting depictions of kiddie porn? [1]
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman...
(Posting the amp link because haha)
I think we should thank Stallman for all the work he’s done in advocating for free software but then let him go and be the crazy old man yelling at the clouds and fade into irrelevancy.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman...
(Posting the amp link because haha)
I think we should thank Stallman for all the work he’s done in advocating for free software but then let him go and be the crazy old man yelling at the clouds and fade into irrelevancy.
For those who do not know RMS personally: "I worked for RMS longer than any other programmer. ... This was an own-goal for RMS. He has had plenty of opportunities to learn how to stfu when that’s necessary. ... I can confirm the unfortunate reality that RMS’s behavior was a concern [in the 1990s], and that [Marvin Minsky's] protection was itself part of the problem. He was never held to account; he was himself coddled in his own lower-grade misbehavior and mistreatment of women. He made the place uncomfortable for a lot of people, and especially women. ... RMS’s mere presence on the scene in this way has served to make it harder to deal with other cases of bad leaders’ bad behavior. It is time for the free software community to leave adolescence and move to adulthood, and this requires leaving childish tantrums, abusive language, and toxic environments behind." — Thomas Bushnell https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
He didn't work with or for RMS longer than any other programmer, there are many who have longer. Gerald J. Sussman is a programmer and hired him at MIT and is still on the board of FSF and still working with him, that is over 40 years. And RMS has grown over the years. This is from over 20 years ago.
>and that [Marvin Minsky's] protection was itself part of the problem
So if your friend was accused of heinous crime, the right thing to do is to distance yourself as far as possible?
So if your friend was accused of heinous crime, the right thing to do is to distance yourself as far as possible?
So I'm not sure there are any "heinous crimes" here, so what we're talking about is hypothetical, not this situation.
If you believe your friend has committed a heinous crime (assuming this isn't just a quote "crime" but actually involves heinous harm to others), the right thing to do is support your friend as a human being and support and encourage them to take accountability for the harm they've done and try to repair it, and either way support what is necessary for them to be taken out of a position where they can continue to do harm, while trying to make sure your friend is okay too (as far as still having a roof over their head and food to eat and emotional support and dignity etc).
I know this isn't the way our society works right now. It is the right thing to do.
Come to think of it, it's the right thing to do even if the harm is less heinous.
Part of the problem is that our society has taught us that the only choices are a) total abandonment of someone, throw them away completely or b) that "supporting" them means helping them deny the harm they've caused avoid any consequences and continue to do harm.
Neither one will work to reduce the amount of harm done or build a culture where we can be human.
If you believe your friend has committed a heinous crime (assuming this isn't just a quote "crime" but actually involves heinous harm to others), the right thing to do is support your friend as a human being and support and encourage them to take accountability for the harm they've done and try to repair it, and either way support what is necessary for them to be taken out of a position where they can continue to do harm, while trying to make sure your friend is okay too (as far as still having a roof over their head and food to eat and emotional support and dignity etc).
I know this isn't the way our society works right now. It is the right thing to do.
Come to think of it, it's the right thing to do even if the harm is less heinous.
Part of the problem is that our society has taught us that the only choices are a) total abandonment of someone, throw them away completely or b) that "supporting" them means helping them deny the harm they've caused avoid any consequences and continue to do harm.
Neither one will work to reduce the amount of harm done or build a culture where we can be human.
If they actually did what they are accused of then, yes, you should probably rethink that friendship. There’s some value in loyalty, but I don’t see a reason why that should include culpable behavior.
Right...but in this specific case, Stallman was loyal because he didn't think his (at that point deceased) friend did it, and in the end he was right. So this seems like a good example of why it's appropriate to withhold judgement until the facts are in.
Also worth noting: Minsky was never actually accused of anything. His name came up in a case and the press & twitter hordes went on a rampage. That's what Stallman was reacting to. It really bothers me that the press outlets that went with "Famed AI Researcher Raped Children" aren't even being discussed, but the guy who said "Did he really, though? I think we should wait for more info" was (and still is) being dragged over the coals for it, even after he was vindicated.
Also worth noting: Minsky was never actually accused of anything. His name came up in a case and the press & twitter hordes went on a rampage. That's what Stallman was reacting to. It really bothers me that the press outlets that went with "Famed AI Researcher Raped Children" aren't even being discussed, but the guy who said "Did he really, though? I think we should wait for more info" was (and still is) being dragged over the coals for it, even after he was vindicated.
The right thing to do is keep controversial opinions to yourself at work, especially when you're in a position of authority or public facing work.
You can stand by a friend without minimizing the harm they cause.
You mean marginalising?
Because minimizing harm is nothing bad as far as I am concerned.
Because minimizing harm is nothing bad as far as I am concerned.
When the actual harm was zero?
And perhaps more importantly when the accusations go well beyond anything evidence warrants?
Yep. That thinking is part of the problem.
Because you did not feel bothered by him you assume no one has a right to it?
And justified or not, there was real harm done to the reputation of FSF.
Because you did not feel bothered by him you assume no one has a right to it?
And justified or not, there was real harm done to the reputation of FSF.
No but justice comes before kindness.
That sounds like a rant from someone just don't doesn't like RMS rather than any substantive argument against him.
numbers_guy(1)
Richard says he's not autistic. People who try to conflate his bad behaviour and autism are excusing his behaviour and unfairly generalising about autistic people.
Richard is argumentative about his bad behaviour. He's not oblivious. Plenty of people have spoken to him about it. You'd think he might take a hint after being removed from his own organisation and all the surrounding commentary. He doesn't care.
(Separately, "techrights" is run by an obsessive troll who harasses people in the FLOSS community.)
Richard is argumentative about his bad behaviour. He's not oblivious. Plenty of people have spoken to him about it. You'd think he might take a hint after being removed from his own organisation and all the surrounding commentary. He doesn't care.
(Separately, "techrights" is run by an obsessive troll who harasses people in the FLOSS community.)
No, I think claiming one can extrapolate from one particular autistic person to all autistic people is "unfairly generalising about autistic people." Autism is a broad spectrum (and far from unidimensional) which manifests in a broad diversity of ways.
I'll generally excuse people who are trying to do the right thing. Richard is trying to do the right thing. If you don't, you'll do very badly in other cultures. By US standards, most cultures do things which are extremely abusive or neglectful (and vice-versa).
I will also mention autism is a psychological term defined in DSM, not a self-identity term. Many people who are autistic don't believe they are, and vice-versa. It's not a personal choice.
I'll generally excuse people who are trying to do the right thing. Richard is trying to do the right thing. If you don't, you'll do very badly in other cultures. By US standards, most cultures do things which are extremely abusive or neglectful (and vice-versa).
I will also mention autism is a psychological term defined in DSM, not a self-identity term. Many people who are autistic don't believe they are, and vice-versa. It's not a personal choice.
He doesn't do the right thing. He becomes agitated and sometimes aggressive when anyone points out that they're uncomfortable with his behaviour. He is not interested in their perspective or comfort.
You're even more confused. Please reread: "I'll generally excuse people who are trying to do the right thing. Richard is trying to do the right thing."
I understand within your cultural frame and value system, ethical behavior is defined with regards to other people's comfort. That's not true for Richard (not for the culture I was born in, for that matter; I don't much care if people around me feel comfortable, nor if they make me feel comfortable, although I do know how to code switch, and do so in professional settings so as to be successful in the US).
Cross-cultural fluency involves being able to interact with people with different value systems. People in the Middle East, China, or Russia will have very different views of what the right thing is from yourself.
I've almost never met a person who tried as hard to do what *they* (not you, not me) believed was right as Richard.
I understand within your cultural frame and value system, ethical behavior is defined with regards to other people's comfort. That's not true for Richard (not for the culture I was born in, for that matter; I don't much care if people around me feel comfortable, nor if they make me feel comfortable, although I do know how to code switch, and do so in professional settings so as to be successful in the US).
Cross-cultural fluency involves being able to interact with people with different value systems. People in the Middle East, China, or Russia will have very different views of what the right thing is from yourself.
I've almost never met a person who tried as hard to do what *they* (not you, not me) believed was right as Richard.
I'm not confused. It's possible to do the right thing in the large and in the small at the same time.
Using cross-cultural fluency to defend Richard Stallman, who doesn't care one iota about cross-cultural fluency, and constantly embarrasses people inside and outside his own culture, is weird.
Using cross-cultural fluency to defend Richard Stallman, who doesn't care one iota about cross-cultural fluency, and constantly embarrasses people inside and outside his own culture, is weird.
You're completely confused. What constitutes the right thing is specific to culture. Culture a lot of components (nationality/ethnicity, professional culture, neurodiversity, etc.). You're imposing your value system on Richard. You're being called on it, and you're doubling down, which is exactly what you fault Richard for. Two posts in, you should know better.
From within Richard's cultural frame, he's doing the right thing in both the large and the small.
Making people feel uncomfortable, embarrassing people, and otherwise are perfectly valid tactics for achieving change in many cultures; just not the one you're from. The extreme emphasis on politeness is very Western (although many Confucian cultures have something similar in the concept of face).
And although it might seem weird to you for me to be making arguments from cross-cultural fluency, Richard would be a hypocrite if he were making an argument from cross-cultural fluency, but he's not, and I'm not Richard.
I've made the same argument to Americans acting inappropriately in all sorts of countries, even though in many of those cultures neither had (not, often, valued) cross-cultural fluency. I'm sorry, but you're being wrong in both the large and small things, just as much as an American in Iran or Japan expecting everyone to behave like them, and talking about how people are either jerks or overly generous when they behave differently, or when Americans talk aabout how cultures have bad attitudes towards children/women/education/civil rights/etc., or are just plain weird.
From within Richard's cultural frame, he's doing the right thing in both the large and the small.
Making people feel uncomfortable, embarrassing people, and otherwise are perfectly valid tactics for achieving change in many cultures; just not the one you're from. The extreme emphasis on politeness is very Western (although many Confucian cultures have something similar in the concept of face).
And although it might seem weird to you for me to be making arguments from cross-cultural fluency, Richard would be a hypocrite if he were making an argument from cross-cultural fluency, but he's not, and I'm not Richard.
I've made the same argument to Americans acting inappropriately in all sorts of countries, even though in many of those cultures neither had (not, often, valued) cross-cultural fluency. I'm sorry, but you're being wrong in both the large and small things, just as much as an American in Iran or Japan expecting everyone to behave like them, and talking about how people are either jerks or overly generous when they behave differently, or when Americans talk aabout how cultures have bad attitudes towards children/women/education/civil rights/etc., or are just plain weird.
Last I checked Mr. Stallman was working primarily in the western/American situation and isn't abiding by those standards by respecting other people's right to be female and not verbally abused, amongst other situations. So why is okay for him to abuse the "culture" which by the way will also get you fired from just about any place that I've worked or kicked out of any group I've worked in.
When did you last check? Last I checked, he lived on airplanes, giving talks around the world.
If it makes you feel better, Richard is verbally hostile towards men too. The "verbal abuse" is equal opportunity.
And all that said, a lot of immigrants get fired in the US for what's perceived to be inappropriate cultural behavior here. African Americans too, for that matter. Many communication styles are perceived as verbally abusive within US culture. That doesn't make it right.
If it makes you feel better, Richard is verbally hostile towards men too. The "verbal abuse" is equal opportunity.
And all that said, a lot of immigrants get fired in the US for what's perceived to be inappropriate cultural behavior here. African Americans too, for that matter. Many communication styles are perceived as verbally abusive within US culture. That doesn't make it right.
jdub(1)
The person above you is just saying that outrage cuture is not always "right". Its not even about cultural differences
> I don't much care if people around me feel...make me feel comfortable
This doesn't seem consistent with the commonly accepted meaning of "comfortable." By their very nature things that make someone uncomfortable are things they care about. If they truly didn't care they would not experience discomfort.
Are there really cultures where inflicting suffering on others is not "within their cultural frame and value system"?
This doesn't seem consistent with the commonly accepted meaning of "comfortable." By their very nature things that make someone uncomfortable are things they care about. If they truly didn't care they would not experience discomfort.
Are there really cultures where inflicting suffering on others is not "within their cultural frame and value system"?
> Are there really cultures where inflicting suffering on others is not "within their cultural frame and value system"?
Yes!
* Consider treatment of children in Korea, where kids are forced, by their parents, to study 16 hours per day.
* Consider tactics used in many resistance movements against oppressive governments in Slavic cultures (and similar tactics recently adopted by oppressed African American communities in the US), which are explicitly about making people feel uncomfortable about wrongs.
* Consider Spartan culture (or any other macho culture). Even in the US, why would Marines do the things they do?
* Consider historical Catholic culture of denial and self-sacrifice.
* Consider "drink from the firehose" culture at elite tech schools like MIT.
* Heck, consider the way many cultures temper kids to be resiliant to discomfort (e.g. dipping in cold water in parts of Eastern Europe)
... and so on. Contemporary progressive Western culture is almost uniquely focused on concepts like fun and personal comfort.
The way your comment conflates "comfort" with "things they care about" is an example of that.
Broadly speaking, Western culture is also (both currently and historically) more focused than most other cultures on surface politeness. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" is an middle/upper-class WASP concept. In China, if you're fat, you'll get called fat. That's not uniquely US (Japan is even further in that direction), but it is a place a lot of people have to code switch in the US, since the US (with a few other countries, like England, Germany, and Japan) are outliers there. I can't raise my voice in a professional middle-class US workplace. I can do a lot of things on international conference calls (to the relief of both sides!) which would get me instantly fired in the US.
It's a signalling and oppression mechanism too; if a construction worker learned to code but didn't learn to code switch US cultures too, they'd likely never achieve socioeconomic mobility. Google would say they're an aggressive, sexist, white male (or if not white, at the very least, not a "culture fit"). It's how I let you know I'm part of your in-crowd.
Fortunately, I can code switch now!
> By their very nature things that make someone uncomfortable are things they care about. If they truly didn't care they would not experience discomfort.
You're conflating two different things (which are deeply conflated in US culture, so this isn't a comment about you). I'll give a couple of examples:
* I care about personal growth. Personal growth requires discomfort. Whether that's grinding through a complex math text, learning to code switch through immersion in a different culture, being told I'm wrong, or otherwise.
* My girlfriend has a mental health issue. She cares about resolving it. US culture has conditioned her to "manage" it by seeking ways which avoid "triggering" situations. As far as I can tell, that's leading to a spiral where it's getting worse. In my culture, you'd do the opposite; you'd seek out those situations to habituate to them (which is exceptionally uncomfortable).
Yes!
* Consider treatment of children in Korea, where kids are forced, by their parents, to study 16 hours per day.
* Consider tactics used in many resistance movements against oppressive governments in Slavic cultures (and similar tactics recently adopted by oppressed African American communities in the US), which are explicitly about making people feel uncomfortable about wrongs.
* Consider Spartan culture (or any other macho culture). Even in the US, why would Marines do the things they do?
* Consider historical Catholic culture of denial and self-sacrifice.
* Consider "drink from the firehose" culture at elite tech schools like MIT.
* Heck, consider the way many cultures temper kids to be resiliant to discomfort (e.g. dipping in cold water in parts of Eastern Europe)
... and so on. Contemporary progressive Western culture is almost uniquely focused on concepts like fun and personal comfort.
The way your comment conflates "comfort" with "things they care about" is an example of that.
Broadly speaking, Western culture is also (both currently and historically) more focused than most other cultures on surface politeness. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" is an middle/upper-class WASP concept. In China, if you're fat, you'll get called fat. That's not uniquely US (Japan is even further in that direction), but it is a place a lot of people have to code switch in the US, since the US (with a few other countries, like England, Germany, and Japan) are outliers there. I can't raise my voice in a professional middle-class US workplace. I can do a lot of things on international conference calls (to the relief of both sides!) which would get me instantly fired in the US.
It's a signalling and oppression mechanism too; if a construction worker learned to code but didn't learn to code switch US cultures too, they'd likely never achieve socioeconomic mobility. Google would say they're an aggressive, sexist, white male (or if not white, at the very least, not a "culture fit"). It's how I let you know I'm part of your in-crowd.
Fortunately, I can code switch now!
> By their very nature things that make someone uncomfortable are things they care about. If they truly didn't care they would not experience discomfort.
You're conflating two different things (which are deeply conflated in US culture, so this isn't a comment about you). I'll give a couple of examples:
* I care about personal growth. Personal growth requires discomfort. Whether that's grinding through a complex math text, learning to code switch through immersion in a different culture, being told I'm wrong, or otherwise.
* My girlfriend has a mental health issue. She cares about resolving it. US culture has conditioned her to "manage" it by seeking ways which avoid "triggering" situations. As far as I can tell, that's leading to a spiral where it's getting worse. In my culture, you'd do the opposite; you'd seek out those situations to habituate to them (which is exceptionally uncomfortable).
I think you've confused cultures where people have a relatively high tolerance for discomfort because they consider it to be worth it (the examples you gave) and culture where people simply do not care about others' discomfort (how Stallman's colleagues describe him).
All those cultures have a goal in mind when inflicting discomfort. Does Stallman?
All those cultures have a goal in mind when inflicting discomfort. Does Stallman?
No, I haven't. I think you deeply don't understand those cultures. Cultures usually agree on what's bad, but not on how bad it is. In my school, everyone told "yo momma" jokes. I've also been in countries where insulting your mom would lead to a fist fight, and I'd be considered in the wrong for making the joke (and not the other person for punching me). How bad is a fist fight? How bad is a "yo momma" joke? It depends on your culture.
Yes, making someone feel uncomfortable is considered bad everywhere, but in many parts of the world, it's the same kind of bad as using the wrong fork to eat your salad in the US. No one cares. No one will argue it's not better than using the Right Fork, but whatever. (And yes, there are cultures where eating etiquette and ritual is super-important).
That's even true in parts of lower-class US culture. If I'm on a construction site, and there are two workers:
- One is impeccably polite, and never makes me uncomfortable
- One always helps me out in a bind; if I need a shift covered, or my family has an emergency, but goes out of their way to tease everyone
Guess who'll be preferred? It's the opposite from elite British society (which the US descends from), where I can conquer your country and exploit your people so long as I'm polite and don't lose my temper.
And yes, different types teasing and other ways of making people intentionally feel uncomfortable for NO reason are parts of many cultures, and no one cares.
As a footnote: As far as I know, Stallman does have a goal in inflicting discomfort: he is advocating for a particular set of social changes. Is that an effective way to do it? Probably not. But no one's perfect. Stallman works from first principles and kind of ignores prevailing culture.
Yes, making someone feel uncomfortable is considered bad everywhere, but in many parts of the world, it's the same kind of bad as using the wrong fork to eat your salad in the US. No one cares. No one will argue it's not better than using the Right Fork, but whatever. (And yes, there are cultures where eating etiquette and ritual is super-important).
That's even true in parts of lower-class US culture. If I'm on a construction site, and there are two workers:
- One is impeccably polite, and never makes me uncomfortable
- One always helps me out in a bind; if I need a shift covered, or my family has an emergency, but goes out of their way to tease everyone
Guess who'll be preferred? It's the opposite from elite British society (which the US descends from), where I can conquer your country and exploit your people so long as I'm polite and don't lose my temper.
And yes, different types teasing and other ways of making people intentionally feel uncomfortable for NO reason are parts of many cultures, and no one cares.
As a footnote: As far as I know, Stallman does have a goal in inflicting discomfort: he is advocating for a particular set of social changes. Is that an effective way to do it? Probably not. But no one's perfect. Stallman works from first principles and kind of ignores prevailing culture.
> Richard says he's not autistic. People who try to conflate his bad behaviour and autism are excusing his behaviour and unfairly generalising about autistic people.
Upthread someone made a pretty convincing argument that he has no idea what he's talking about on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537802
Upthread someone made a pretty convincing argument that he has no idea what he's talking about on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537802
But he didn't even say the stuff people say he did. It's literally just a witchhunt.
Let's not pretend that people are even mad at him for anything he did. It's just journalists contorting facts to make a good story, and Silicon Valley's inability to discern truth.
Let's not pretend that people are even mad at him for anything he did. It's just journalists contorting facts to make a good story, and Silicon Valley's inability to discern truth.
Assuming for a moment that he didn't say it: that just shows that he's incompetent at communication. Since that's an intrinsic part of his job it shows he's not suitable for the position.
If he'd ever showed any sign that he wanted to improve people might be a bit more tolerant. He's had years to put support in place, and he's declined to do so. He keeps blaming lack of understanding on other people - [I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said, vs I'm sorry I said what I said].
And now we have dozens of people who describe the harassment and aggression they faced when working with him.
People defending RMS on HN want it both ways: when allegations are made these people will say "it's unfair to put this in public; complaints need to be dealt with in private". But then when we're trying to talk about RMS's behaviours those same people will ask for huge amounts of detail in order to litigate the accusations.
It's an inconsistent approach that's driven by defending RMS rather than wanting to find out what the truth is.
If he'd ever showed any sign that he wanted to improve people might be a bit more tolerant. He's had years to put support in place, and he's declined to do so. He keeps blaming lack of understanding on other people - [I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said, vs I'm sorry I said what I said].
And now we have dozens of people who describe the harassment and aggression they faced when working with him.
People defending RMS on HN want it both ways: when allegations are made these people will say "it's unfair to put this in public; complaints need to be dealt with in private". But then when we're trying to talk about RMS's behaviours those same people will ask for huge amounts of detail in order to litigate the accusations.
It's an inconsistent approach that's driven by defending RMS rather than wanting to find out what the truth is.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -- George Bernard Shaw
Some context I got from https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of...:
Stallman was pressured to resign from the board and MIT because of some of these controversies:
- Jeffrey Epstein coerced one of his victims to have sex with Marvin Minsky. In an online thread, Stallman argued that this might not be sexual assault if Minsky didn't realize she was coerced.
- 10 years ago, Stallman claimed that 14 year olds are old enough to consent to sex and it's not pedophilia. He since retracted this claim
- He is generally very weird and doesn't have etiquite. For example, he was invited to a fancy restaurant and then pranced around the tables because he wanted to dance
Overall, Stallman is very unaware of societal expectations, so sometimes he says things ranging from non-PC to outright sexist, albeit unintentionally.
EDIT: Fixed some inaccuracies
Stallman was pressured to resign from the board and MIT because of some of these controversies:
- Jeffrey Epstein coerced one of his victims to have sex with Marvin Minsky. In an online thread, Stallman argued that this might not be sexual assault if Minsky didn't realize she was coerced.
- 10 years ago, Stallman claimed that 14 year olds are old enough to consent to sex and it's not pedophilia. He since retracted this claim
- He is generally very weird and doesn't have etiquite. For example, he was invited to a fancy restaurant and then pranced around the tables because he wanted to dance
Overall, Stallman is very unaware of societal expectations, so sometimes he says things ranging from non-PC to outright sexist, albeit unintentionally.
EDIT: Fixed some inaccuracies
Canada only raised their age of consent from 14 to 16 in 2008. I don't think Canada should be cancelled as a result of this.
Legal age of consent isn't the same as being moral. These are two separate things.
Nobody is saying we should 'cancel' Canada for having bad laws in the past.
IMO this is a really weak argument.
Nobody is saying we should 'cancel' Canada for having bad laws in the past.
IMO this is a really weak argument.
But we should 'cancel' people for having bad views in the past? Got it.
It is amazing how you equate a fairly random and unusual aspect of US law to "being moral".
Here's another review[0] of the events.
[0] https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
A character assassination campaign, and nothing more than that.
[0] https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
A character assassination campaign, and nothing more than that.
We've all heard of the bus factor. Software project isn't a one-man show. There's no shortage of brilliant pioneers handing the baton to someone else or just sliding into obscurity for any number of reasons (e.g., got bored, found another passion, started a new project, gone off the rail, etc.). People no longer care about ESR's opinions, and that's OK. There's no reason FSF should need Stallman's continued presence - it's a software advocacy group, not a cult.
I just find it frustrating that Stallman is considered beyond reproach, because he wrote something great decades ago, when his contribution in the past 20 years or so was hardly irreplaceable. Almost makes me wonder if he's being held as champion because he is an asshole who can't talk to women without creeping them out.
I just find it frustrating that Stallman is considered beyond reproach, because he wrote something great decades ago, when his contribution in the past 20 years or so was hardly irreplaceable. Almost makes me wonder if he's being held as champion because he is an asshole who can't talk to women without creeping them out.
Not everyone is dispensable. I doubt there would be true free software without him. We need militant people to push towards that direction and there are not many
It’s not the problem about being dispensable, it’s just that regardless of the hard work Stallman did over the past decades, it’s becoming harder and harder to justify his presence when many other contributors are losing faith the org because of him (such as the 33 people who signed a joint statement on the GNU project: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...). Stallman should at least have apologized over some of his awkward and potentially offending behavior over the years and do some self-retrospection (which is what Linus did, and as a result has much higher ground than Stallman, since even if he still might think the drama was overblown it still shows that he cares and emphasizes others to a certain degree.) But it seems that none of that is done even at a superficial level, so I expect FSF would significantly lose more trust among developers after Stallman’s revival. (Note that HN isn’t the only place to measure overall dev opinion...)
[deleted]
Your point works better without the last sentence.
Agreed 150%. I think a lot of older generation engineers like him because he is an asshole, and says things to women that they, in turn, feel. I think the sun is setting on the old, rude, archetype of engineer that cannot tolerate those different from them.
IMO, Stallman is a good philosophical leader, but a terrible organizational leader. "On the board" is a decent compromise.
But he has been a huge contributor to GNU's decent into irrelevance in recent years. As an organization, they're perpetually stuck in the 1990s.
But he has been a huge contributor to GNU's decent into irrelevance in recent years. As an organization, they're perpetually stuck in the 1990s.
> he has been a huge contributor to GNU's decent into irrelevance in recent years. As an organization, they're perpetually stuck in the 1990s.
I agree, but this reason, alone, is enough for him to be off the board. Maybe his time has passed, maybe free software has grown into something larger than he has vision for, maybe it grew in a way incompatible with his vision.
I agree, but this reason, alone, is enough for him to be off the board. Maybe his time has passed, maybe free software has grown into something larger than he has vision for, maybe it grew in a way incompatible with his vision.
GNU, which develops software, should have separate leadership from the FSF, which does advocacy.
Stallman should have given up GNU long ago to someone better, but he’s much better at advocacy which is what the FSF does.
Stallman should have given up GNU long ago to someone better, but he’s much better at advocacy which is what the FSF does.
Honestly, I think the GNU software is a little like "giving a man a fish"
Meanwhile, the GPL License is more "teaching a man to fish", and I think the software written and protected by this license has grown, both in importance and coverage.
Lots of people are "getting it" as we clearly see how "our" phones and computers are really not living up to their promise.
Meanwhile, the GPL License is more "teaching a man to fish", and I think the software written and protected by this license has grown, both in importance and coverage.
Lots of people are "getting it" as we clearly see how "our" phones and computers are really not living up to their promise.
FSFLA is actually pretty productive as I understand it. FSF US seems to spend all their time starting irrelevant political campaigns with terrible pun-based slogans.
FSF US is pretty much a one-man show, and does pretty well for a one-man show for impact. It's basically RMS and a few people to support him, as far as I can tell.
A one-man show with the one man missing made no sense to me.
A one-man show with the one man missing made no sense to me.
What makes you say this?
So, there’s a bit of a history of Stallman botching GNU leadership. The organization has grown to the scale where it requires a different skill set to lead than the skill set he has.
It’s clear he has a vision for the GNU software, but the development process itself is chaotic and needs more central guidance on a policy/process level—but he tries to lead it on a more technical/maintainer level.
One example is the glibc/emacs unexec discussion. He stepped in to meddle without enough knowledge of the relevant teams, in order to solve an issue that would have been avoided with a more explicit policies in place about the relationship between different GNU projects.
Having a vision is not enough, there are a lot of other things you need to do right in order to lead a project like that.
It’s clear he has a vision for the GNU software, but the development process itself is chaotic and needs more central guidance on a policy/process level—but he tries to lead it on a more technical/maintainer level.
One example is the glibc/emacs unexec discussion. He stepped in to meddle without enough knowledge of the relevant teams, in order to solve an issue that would have been avoided with a more explicit policies in place about the relationship between different GNU projects.
Having a vision is not enough, there are a lot of other things you need to do right in order to lead a project like that.
Maybe the practical effect of him giving up leadership on the GNU Project would be actually "better" than giving up leadership on the FSF - I even doubt there was anything better (beyond a form of realpolitik "damage" control) that happened when he left the FSF. The way he leads the GNU Project has been disputed numerous times. But the attempts of some to leverage the FSF departure to make him go away from the GNU Project were distasteful.
Not the OP, but GNU/FSF has stagnated in the past 20 years. There's no cohesive vision; GNU is more of a ecletic collection of software packages than a complete OS. The FSF has no huge influence; most of its impact is based on its historical role.
I guess more of what I'm asking is how rms contributed to GNU's lack of traction rather than whether it is declining/not gaining traction or not.
I know that this opinion is controversial - but I think GPLv3 really hurt GNU a lot. And that license was 100% RMS's doing, as well as the decision to force it onto most/all GNU projects.
GPLv3 basically forced the embedded Linux community to dump the GNU userspace in favor of Busybox. That's a lot of active developers who stopped using and contributing to Bash, Coreutils, and a whole host of other projects.
RMS propelled free software forward in the early days, and should be remembered as a visionary. It's been downhill for GNU since 2008 though, and that's a trend I'd love to see changed.
GPLv3 basically forced the embedded Linux community to dump the GNU userspace in favor of Busybox. That's a lot of active developers who stopped using and contributing to Bash, Coreutils, and a whole host of other projects.
RMS propelled free software forward in the early days, and should be remembered as a visionary. It's been downhill for GNU since 2008 though, and that's a trend I'd love to see changed.
Why did GPLv3 force the embedded Linux community to drop GNU?
Basically, GPLv3 has a requirement that you need provide your users instructions for modifying/replacing any GPLv3 software that ships on a device that you sell. That means, in essence, that your users need to be allowed to install modified versions of any GPLv3 software.
As a consequence of this, you can't have signed/encrypted firmware unless you provide your users with the private-keys.
You also basically can't stop people from inspecting/modifying any secret-sauce parts of your design, at least not without jumping through an awful lot of hoops. Because if your users must be allowed to install a modified version of Bash (for example), then all bets are off for what they'd insert to get access to the rest of your filesystem.
Lots of companies have IP that they want to protect. Maybe it's DSP modelling plugins that your engineers wrote. Maybe it's programs that access private APIs on the company servers. Maybe there's shared firmware across products in a feature-differentiated product family. Maybe there's a legal requirement that customers can't modify your firmware, for something like FCC or FAA compliance. None of these kinds of models are feasible if your users can modify your rootfs. So in essence, it means your product can't include GPLv3 software if you also want to ship IP that you need to protect.
When GPLv3 was released, the FSF basically pushed it onto every GNU package. Which they could do, as owners of the copyright on all code in all GNU-managed projects. So that means bash, coreutils, make, bc, find, grep, sed, gawk, libtool, gpg, gzip, tar, wget, etc. And also more subtle items like readline, which finds its way as a dependency into all kinds of things. This essentially meant that all of it became verboten for lots of developers to include in their products, forcing them to move to alternatives like Busybox.
As a consequence of this, you can't have signed/encrypted firmware unless you provide your users with the private-keys.
You also basically can't stop people from inspecting/modifying any secret-sauce parts of your design, at least not without jumping through an awful lot of hoops. Because if your users must be allowed to install a modified version of Bash (for example), then all bets are off for what they'd insert to get access to the rest of your filesystem.
Lots of companies have IP that they want to protect. Maybe it's DSP modelling plugins that your engineers wrote. Maybe it's programs that access private APIs on the company servers. Maybe there's shared firmware across products in a feature-differentiated product family. Maybe there's a legal requirement that customers can't modify your firmware, for something like FCC or FAA compliance. None of these kinds of models are feasible if your users can modify your rootfs. So in essence, it means your product can't include GPLv3 software if you also want to ship IP that you need to protect.
When GPLv3 was released, the FSF basically pushed it onto every GNU package. Which they could do, as owners of the copyright on all code in all GNU-managed projects. So that means bash, coreutils, make, bc, find, grep, sed, gawk, libtool, gpg, gzip, tar, wget, etc. And also more subtle items like readline, which finds its way as a dependency into all kinds of things. This essentially meant that all of it became verboten for lots of developers to include in their products, forcing them to move to alternatives like Busybox.
Linus on GPLv3: https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU
He really doesn't like it.
He really doesn't like it.
Given he's the leader of GNU and formerly the leader of the FSF, he's responsible for any failure of GNU/FSF to live up to their potential. Given that free software and open source have only become more popular recently, and given that other free software organizations have not been shrinking (Debian, Apache, NLNet, OpenCollective, Linux Foundation), I think it's fair to say the FSF and GNU could be more successful with better leadership and a shift in vision or strategy (even without compromising on its ideals).
Reminder that Alexandre Oliva was also forced out by his fellow FSF board members for defending RMS from false accusations.
https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/2021-01-10-resignati...
https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/2020-12-19-leadershi...
https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/2021-01-10-resignati...
https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/2020-12-19-leadershi...
Mob justice is not OK just because women do it.
If these women have anything substantial they should make formal reports/complaints, not anonymous vogue statements like, "he make me feel uncomfortable".
Cannot believe that one even has to say this. Why are women always presumed to be innocent and men always presumed to be guilty?
Also, frankly, there is a point at which, certain behaviour might make you feel uncomfortable, but that does not mean it is grounds for firing that person. At some point you have to just fend for yourself and tell the person to fuck off. We cannot just fire anyone who has some harmless quirk that you don't appreciate. I myself have to work with loads of people with nasty behaviours, but I don't presume to demand they all get fired just because of that.
I mean, this has gotten ridiculous. We went from "he grabbed me by the pussy" and "he jerked off in front of me" to .... "he once hit on me and I had to reject him". The latter is perfectly normal behavior unless you propose we criminalize being a man.
Also, frankly, there is a point at which, certain behaviour might make you feel uncomfortable, but that does not mean it is grounds for firing that person. At some point you have to just fend for yourself and tell the person to fuck off. We cannot just fire anyone who has some harmless quirk that you don't appreciate. I myself have to work with loads of people with nasty behaviours, but I don't presume to demand they all get fired just because of that.
I mean, this has gotten ridiculous. We went from "he grabbed me by the pussy" and "he jerked off in front of me" to .... "he once hit on me and I had to reject him". The latter is perfectly normal behavior unless you propose we criminalize being a man.
I don't see how this is relevant _at all_ to the linked article. You seem to be taking existing arguments that aren't even related to RMS's case and arguing against a strawman of an extreme version of them.
No "mob justice" happened here. No women came forward and said RMS "hit on them" or whatever. RMS faced criticism for comments which justified rape and were close to victim blaming, and willingly resigned from his position at the FSF because of it. A position I personally believe he could have kept had he decided not to resign (and the fact that he is able to return to it so soon after leaving suggests I am correct).
Edit: I think that several people are placing too much importance on the "willingly resigned" part of my comment downthread. If you believe that RMS was forced out and he had no choice in the matter (i.e. it was "resign or get fired"), then feel free to replace the words "willingly resigned" with "was fired" in my comment (and ignore the last sentence in that paragraph), the point being made still stands.
No "mob justice" happened here. No women came forward and said RMS "hit on them" or whatever. RMS faced criticism for comments which justified rape and were close to victim blaming, and willingly resigned from his position at the FSF because of it. A position I personally believe he could have kept had he decided not to resign (and the fact that he is able to return to it so soon after leaving suggests I am correct).
Edit: I think that several people are placing too much importance on the "willingly resigned" part of my comment downthread. If you believe that RMS was forced out and he had no choice in the matter (i.e. it was "resign or get fired"), then feel free to replace the words "willingly resigned" with "was fired" in my comment (and ignore the last sentence in that paragraph), the point being made still stands.
As a woman who, at my 16 was able to fool many men in selling me alcohol and nicotine, was able to interpret RMS arguments properly.
It's a shame that his words are being twisted once again after everything he went through.
It's a shame that his words are being twisted once again after everything he went through.
I can understand what Stallman meant, but I am not at all surprised at the reaction. This particular case has little to do with him hitting on women around him. This had been happening for decades and most people just rolled their eyes and made fun of him behind his back about it. This had everything to do with MIT's exposure to Epstein.
MIT gets outed as having numerous researchers who took money from and traveled with a convicted pedophile sex abuser, sex trafficker, and likely financial criminal, and Stallman writes an e-mail that sounds very much as if he's obliquely defending Epstein.
I imagine someone at MIT's communications office having a heart attack. "Oh fuck shut this idiot up NOW!" someone probably shouted.
This wasn't #metoo. This was Stallman embarrassing MIT and numerous powerful people.
I feel sort of sorry for Stallman because it's clear that he's "on the spectrum" or at least is the sort of person who thinks ultra-logically and doesn't understand the irrational power machinations of politics. He felt like he was writing something logical, and he was, but he stepped in a gigantic bear trap that would have been obvious to anyone with any social understanding.
Pro tip: if your institution is enmeshed in scandal, keep your mouth shut unless you are coordinating with your communications department or whomever is in charge of such things. If you do check, 99% of the time they will tell you to keep your mouth shut. If you do open your mouth, even with good intentions, polish up your CV first.
It amuses me that this entire 500+ post thread is about "cancel culture" when that's not what happened at all in this case.
MIT gets outed as having numerous researchers who took money from and traveled with a convicted pedophile sex abuser, sex trafficker, and likely financial criminal, and Stallman writes an e-mail that sounds very much as if he's obliquely defending Epstein.
I imagine someone at MIT's communications office having a heart attack. "Oh fuck shut this idiot up NOW!" someone probably shouted.
This wasn't #metoo. This was Stallman embarrassing MIT and numerous powerful people.
I feel sort of sorry for Stallman because it's clear that he's "on the spectrum" or at least is the sort of person who thinks ultra-logically and doesn't understand the irrational power machinations of politics. He felt like he was writing something logical, and he was, but he stepped in a gigantic bear trap that would have been obvious to anyone with any social understanding.
Pro tip: if your institution is enmeshed in scandal, keep your mouth shut unless you are coordinating with your communications department or whomever is in charge of such things. If you do check, 99% of the time they will tell you to keep your mouth shut. If you do open your mouth, even with good intentions, polish up your CV first.
It amuses me that this entire 500+ post thread is about "cancel culture" when that's not what happened at all in this case.
"... and Stallman writes an e-mail that sounds very much as if he's obliquely defending Epstein"
Complete misinterpretation of what RMS has written about. He defended Minsky, not Epstein.
Complete misinterpretation of what RMS has written about. He defended Minsky, not Epstein.
It doesn't matter. He waded into a giant scandal and published something that sounded like he was defending the whole thing. I can't think of a single institution that this would not get you fired from, usually within hours.
Hell CEOs can be fired for such things... unless they have Elon Musk or Steve Jobs levels of reality distortion fields and cult followings.
Hell CEOs can be fired for such things... unless they have Elon Musk or Steve Jobs levels of reality distortion fields and cult followings.
Yes, but he sounded like he was defending Epstein.
I like how you managed to victim blame an autistic person for not having enough social skills to avoid an ideologically driven struggle session / witch hunt just now.
It's amazing what defenders of the Critical Theory / Twitter driven cancel culture will defend. Really, victim blaming an autistic person for not having social skills, literally one of the things affected most by their disorder? This is a new low to sink to for you lot.
What's next, you gonna blame an amputee for not running out of the way of a moving truck?
It's amazing what defenders of the Critical Theory / Twitter driven cancel culture will defend. Really, victim blaming an autistic person for not having social skills, literally one of the things affected most by their disorder? This is a new low to sink to for you lot.
What's next, you gonna blame an amputee for not running out of the way of a moving truck?
On the other hand, I had no trouble convincing people to buy me booze and smokes either, only I was a fat ugly boy
> willingly resigned from his position at the FSF because of it.
I don't think willingly is the best way to put it. It was more along the lines that he was told there would be consequences and he could avoid them if he resigned.
I don't think willingly is the best way to put it. It was more along the lines that he was told there would be consequences and he could avoid them if he resigned.
It's possible this is true, although I personally suspect if he was willing to put out a statement that said something like (paraphrasing) "I did a dumb thing, I'm sorry, I now understand why rape is bad, and I'll work on being better about understanding why these types of things are bad" he would have kept the position.
However, even if I'm wrong, and he really was forced to resign, I don't think it detracts that much from my point that GP is arguing against strawmen like "fired for hitting on a women and being rejected" that are completely unrelated to RMS's case.
However, even if I'm wrong, and he really was forced to resign, I don't think it detracts that much from my point that GP is arguing against strawmen like "fired for hitting on a women and being rejected" that are completely unrelated to RMS's case.
He could write out an exact description of what he said and what he has changed his views on, but I doubt people who has seen the media characterization of his comments would be made any happier.
He could say "I previous thought the word sexual assault meant the word assault added a qualifier that required the application of force or violence, but I now know that the word assault in this case mean a legal definition that also includes negligent to seek consent and absent of intent to cause harm.". Would that change the media perception?
He could say "I previous thought the word sexual assault meant the word assault added a qualifier that required the application of force or violence, but I now know that the word assault in this case mean a legal definition that also includes negligent to seek consent and absent of intent to cause harm.". Would that change the media perception?
It would change my perception, I can't really pretend to speak for "the media" though.
Nah, that is an optimally bad strategy. Don't concede things you didn't actually say or mean in the hope that it will mollify people, it never works and will only be held against you.
Don't rewrite history, main reason Richard was pushed out was a MeToo/racism witch hunt against him. He was not the only one attacked on it, most heads of open source projects were also a target at the same time.
But it was no vague anonymous - he once hit on me - lynch mob, but very concrete criticism of RMS. Things he said and did in the past - and in the present.
(only thing would be, that his "voluntary resign" was obviously done with a lot of pressure)
(only thing would be, that his "voluntary resign" was obviously done with a lot of pressure)
one of those criticisms as a i recall was 'he had a mattress in his office' as if this suggested something untoward rather than him sleeping in his office
No. If you go back and look at that accusation, it was that he was propositioning people for sex in the halls of MIT, AND he had a mattress in his office.
> propositioning people for sex in the halls of MIT
you are going to need to cite that. the only accusations of 'sexual harassment' i have seen are asking women at conferences on dates.
you are going to need to cite that. the only accusations of 'sexual harassment' i have seen are asking women at conferences on dates.
That counts as harassment in my opinion if it happens without at least some reasonable reason to believe the women may be interested in dating him, if he persists with a given woman after she doesn't respond with interest, if there is any sort of power dynamic or other coercive context in place that might make the woman feel not free to decline without social or professional penalty (within a community like the free software world this obstacle would often be present in relation to someone like RMS who is prominent within that community), if he makes a habit of propositioning people in professional contexts, or if he asks women out in unprofessional ways like inappropriate touching. If none of these patterns occur, it's probably not harassment, but I suspect he does some of them.
And if it is harassment, I'd probably say it's sexual harassment since it relates to unwanted seeking of romantic or sexual relationships in a professional environment.
And if it is harassment, I'd probably say it's sexual harassment since it relates to unwanted seeking of romantic or sexual relationships in a professional environment.
He used to live in his office.
He moved out around 1998.[1]
[1] https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html
[1] https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html
Well, but in combination with the sign on his office" Knight for Justice (and hot ladies)" and other remarks he did - you maybe see, why some people might get another idea?
And why women feel uncomfortable around such a men? And why it therefore might be a bad idea to have such a person in a leadership position?
And why women feel uncomfortable around such a men? And why it therefore might be a bad idea to have such a person in a leadership position?
Which apparently was written by someone else who then snapped the photo.
You know that as a fact, or are you providing alternative facts based on what?
I have not seen the sign in person, but been told by people that it was indeed there.
I have not seen the sign in person, but been told by people that it was indeed there.
Is it bad for a man to hit on a woman?
In 2021, yes, it is, or at least that's the set of norms we've created. To be more precise, it's bad for anyone to hit on anyone else unless one omnisciently knows the other party is interested in you and wants to be hit on.
As a result, the new forms of dating are that in order to move forward your risk for "making a move" (be it small or large) is not only rejection but also, apparently, potentially career ending for many (especially public figures).
I'm glad I'm happily settled and far removed from the dating scene. Perhaps my principles are too crass for many but I feel in today's romantic relationships, you almost need to have an attorney with you on a date and notary that can sign off that both parties are going to consent to physical contact before making physical contact or much beyond verbally flirting in the most uninteresting ways leaving both parties wondering if the other is at all interested in them romantically.
I'm not condoning rape or flat out sexual assault, there is certainly a line that should never be crossed, but I think we've been moving that line too far for reasonably acceptable human behavior. Heaven forbid you take the chance of misreading the situation and attempt to kiss someone before also having that notarized by your attorney present.
As a result, the new forms of dating are that in order to move forward your risk for "making a move" (be it small or large) is not only rejection but also, apparently, potentially career ending for many (especially public figures).
I'm glad I'm happily settled and far removed from the dating scene. Perhaps my principles are too crass for many but I feel in today's romantic relationships, you almost need to have an attorney with you on a date and notary that can sign off that both parties are going to consent to physical contact before making physical contact or much beyond verbally flirting in the most uninteresting ways leaving both parties wondering if the other is at all interested in them romantically.
I'm not condoning rape or flat out sexual assault, there is certainly a line that should never be crossed, but I think we've been moving that line too far for reasonably acceptable human behavior. Heaven forbid you take the chance of misreading the situation and attempt to kiss someone before also having that notarized by your attorney present.
> In 2021, yes, it is, or at least that's the set of norms we've created. To be more precise, it's bad for anyone to hit on anyone else unless one omnisciently knows the other party is interested in you and wants to be hit on.
I can't believe anyone seriously thinks this.
It's bad if you're in a position of power and you hit on someone under your influence - doesn't matter if they would reciprocate or not.
I can't believe anyone seriously thinks this.
It's bad if you're in a position of power and you hit on someone under your influence - doesn't matter if they would reciprocate or not.
"but I think we've been moving that line too far for reasonably acceptable human behavior"
We maybe did. But we are also far from the dystopian scenario you described. I can tell you, in the real world dating still just works fine.
But yes, some behaviours like slapping on some ass, are more frowned upon and called out. Rightfully so.
The times where a woman had to marry her rapist, (this is actually from the bible) are gladly mostly over. But those times were the reason, now it got pushed back too much.
Because there is some unresolved anger left. And being aware of it - can help understand some rections better.
Like the original blog post that started all this. Which many here waved away as a sneaky smear campaign to create attention. Well no, it was a very emotional, honest expressed post. Maybe not really fair in all points, because - emotions. But authentic.
When you are a leader in an idealistic movement and you are incapable of sensing other peoples feelings - before you wave accusations of rape just away - then you are just wrong in that position.
We maybe did. But we are also far from the dystopian scenario you described. I can tell you, in the real world dating still just works fine.
But yes, some behaviours like slapping on some ass, are more frowned upon and called out. Rightfully so.
The times where a woman had to marry her rapist, (this is actually from the bible) are gladly mostly over. But those times were the reason, now it got pushed back too much.
Because there is some unresolved anger left. And being aware of it - can help understand some rections better.
Like the original blog post that started all this. Which many here waved away as a sneaky smear campaign to create attention. Well no, it was a very emotional, honest expressed post. Maybe not really fair in all points, because - emotions. But authentic.
When you are a leader in an idealistic movement and you are incapable of sensing other peoples feelings - before you wave accusations of rape just away - then you are just wrong in that position.
The norms around dating in liberal America have completely diverged from the ground reality.
Statistically, you are 3x as likely to meet your future spouse in the workplace than a bar/club.[1]
Let's take a look at the stereotypical man in STEM:
* Looks: Below 80 %ile --> Failure at Tinder[2]
* Socially: Below average --> No romantically successful friends groups to set them up
* Early life: Never cool in school / male dominant peer group --> Still single by the time they graduate
This massively raises the stakes of a workplace romantic encounter, because every other avenue has already been shut in their face.
At this point, "it's only harassment if you are undesirable" is a well known anecdote. So, uncharismatic + unattractive men are basically doomed. The alternative is to fully acknowledge the brutally objectifying nature of it all, objectify yourself and go for obnoxious outward displays of desirability. Ie. "look expensive" and target demographics that value your ability to be gainfully employed and accumulate moderate wealth.
The harder alternative is to hit the gym, learn social skills and actually learn how to be charismatic. This is way harder, especially when society actively ostracizes you. Like trying to make a fish climb a tree.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10135
[2] https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
Statistically, you are 3x as likely to meet your future spouse in the workplace than a bar/club.[1]
Let's take a look at the stereotypical man in STEM:
* Looks: Below 80 %ile --> Failure at Tinder[2]
* Socially: Below average --> No romantically successful friends groups to set them up
* Early life: Never cool in school / male dominant peer group --> Still single by the time they graduate
This massively raises the stakes of a workplace romantic encounter, because every other avenue has already been shut in their face.
At this point, "it's only harassment if you are undesirable" is a well known anecdote. So, uncharismatic + unattractive men are basically doomed. The alternative is to fully acknowledge the brutally objectifying nature of it all, objectify yourself and go for obnoxious outward displays of desirability. Ie. "look expensive" and target demographics that value your ability to be gainfully employed and accumulate moderate wealth.
The harder alternative is to hit the gym, learn social skills and actually learn how to be charismatic. This is way harder, especially when society actively ostracizes you. Like trying to make a fish climb a tree.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10135
[2] https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
It so if the woman isn’t in a position to refuse without risking social consequences. Turning down my boss, mentor, or giant in my field is dangerous for me, because they can ruin me if they wanted to.
Only if the woman feel something she'd prefer not to and ascribes it to that action. Or claims to feel something. Ok, yes, it's bad.
No. But to hit on any hot women out of principle(like his sign said on his office door) ... is not quite mature behaviour. Also called sexism/macho.
And can you maybe see, how this makes women uncomfortable? And wanting to avoid such a person? And all together .. avoiding the whole group he has a leadership position?
And can you maybe see, how this makes women uncomfortable? And wanting to avoid such a person? And all together .. avoiding the whole group he has a leadership position?
Every[1] reputable[2] source[3] I[4] can[5] find[6] (literally just the top search results for "stallman resigns" that have any info about the reason) says that Stallman resigned over his comments defending a fellow computer scientist over his participation in the Epstein scandal. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise?
1: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman...
2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/09/17/richa...
3: https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard...
4: https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-ri...
5: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
6: https://www.cnet.com/news/computer-scientist-richard-stallma...
1: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman...
2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/09/17/richa...
3: https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard...
4: https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-ri...
5: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
6: https://www.cnet.com/news/computer-scientist-richard-stallma...
This is what he said which some idiotic people have taken for some kind of endorsement of sexual assault:
"The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The 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. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates…"
If pontificating as to the actual perpetrator of a crime is somehow being complicit in that crime, then I think we may need to overhaul our system of policing and justice for yet another reason.
"The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The 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. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates…"
If pontificating as to the actual perpetrator of a crime is somehow being complicit in that crime, then I think we may need to overhaul our system of policing and justice for yet another reason.
I think you and I must be reading that differently and I also think maybe you're forgetting the context of all this. The victims were as young as 11 years old and that was widely known (and surely obvious to the men involved); his comment therefore boils down to "is it REALLY statutory rape if she seems like she's OK with it?" and the answer is, of course, yes. Surely you can understand why people would see that as an endorsement of sexual assault, albeit perhaps coming from a place of absurd ignorance rather than malevolence?
First of all statutory rape is mostly a US phenomenon. In most other countries something either is a rape or isn't. Second, the term statutory rape is engineered to make people stop thinking and short circuit to "rape". Therefore it's toxic. There's nothing wrong with consensual sex between a 19 yo and a 17 yo. However, in the US they will be put on the rapist list and have their lifes ruined.
Your close-in-age example among people who are near the age of majority is quite morally different than an adult having sex with an 11-year-old. Some US states even have close-in-age exceptions to keep cases like your example legal, and the most common age of consent in the US for purposes of sex is 16, although certain states do have it at 18.
Most US states have “Romeo and Juliet” laws that specifically exempt cases like this where the two are close in age but one is past the line.
As others have pointed out, your specific example is usually covered by the legal system and a strawman in this case - Epstein's friends were middle-aged or old men (Minsky himself was in his seventies when he visited the island), so it's a totally different situation.
The concept of statutory rape recognises the difference between informed and uninformed consent. Children can be coerced or persuaded to consent to things they don't understand, and that are not in their best interests; that's why such laws exist.
The concept of statutory rape recognises the difference between informed and uninformed consent. Children can be coerced or persuaded to consent to things they don't understand, and that are not in their best interests; that's why such laws exist.
I think the issue here is that you've misunderstood the politics of these kinds of "resignations".
In the public mind (even if not in reality) when someone "resigns" because of "past comments", they have either been given an ultimatum - "Jump or be pushed" - or they are experiencing intrusions into their personal life (or there is behaviour from the community that makes this person believe these intrusions are imminent)
My understanding at the time was that it was the former - there were murmurings of possible action against him, and whether it was to avoid harm to the FSF or risk the public damage to his reputation I have no idea, but he decided to gracefully step aside.
So yes, officially you may be correct - but especially with someone like RMS, it is highly unlikely that he just chose to resign because he previously made comments that people didn't like. RMS is very used to making controversial statements and weathering the storm, I find it unlikely (though not impossible) that this was just one storm he couldn't weather - and much more likely that he chose the path of least damage, to himself or his cause or his legacy.
In the public mind (even if not in reality) when someone "resigns" because of "past comments", they have either been given an ultimatum - "Jump or be pushed" - or they are experiencing intrusions into their personal life (or there is behaviour from the community that makes this person believe these intrusions are imminent)
My understanding at the time was that it was the former - there were murmurings of possible action against him, and whether it was to avoid harm to the FSF or risk the public damage to his reputation I have no idea, but he decided to gracefully step aside.
So yes, officially you may be correct - but especially with someone like RMS, it is highly unlikely that he just chose to resign because he previously made comments that people didn't like. RMS is very used to making controversial statements and weathering the storm, I find it unlikely (though not impossible) that this was just one storm he couldn't weather - and much more likely that he chose the path of least damage, to himself or his cause or his legacy.
Even if he really ""resigned"" rather than resigned, I think we both agree the cause was his comments about the Epstein situation, not a "MeToo/racism witch hunt" that I've seen no evidence to support.
[deleted]
I would have liked to personally drive a cattlerod through Epstein's brain, and yet I don't think there was anything wrong with Stallman's comments. How do you square that? Maybe you have not properly characterized the situation.
1000units(1)
What "resignation" can mean in the context of such a situation for top high-level people might not be your typical resignation concept for e.g. employees, or even middle management.
For example ministers of most gov "resign" when they are told to do so, and yes they do resign, even when this is not from their own initiative, and even if they absolutely would not have done it if not told to. For other structures, you can have various kind of pressure playing a role.
We will probably never know the exact degree of pressure and the comprehensive list of who did it, the alliances, maybe the threats etc, and technically it absolutely was a resignation, but given RMS further actions in the GNU Project (that is: not resigning despite additional attempts to leverage his departure from the FSF to make him do likewise here too), I can only say I have my doubt on the total amount of practical freedom he had concerning the FSF part; and it is now probably not just him phoning back and saying: "oh by the way I changed my mind I want to come back", but more likely other "political" and/or alliances changes at the top letting that be even possible.
For example ministers of most gov "resign" when they are told to do so, and yes they do resign, even when this is not from their own initiative, and even if they absolutely would not have done it if not told to. For other structures, you can have various kind of pressure playing a role.
We will probably never know the exact degree of pressure and the comprehensive list of who did it, the alliances, maybe the threats etc, and technically it absolutely was a resignation, but given RMS further actions in the GNU Project (that is: not resigning despite additional attempts to leverage his departure from the FSF to make him do likewise here too), I can only say I have my doubt on the total amount of practical freedom he had concerning the FSF part; and it is now probably not just him phoning back and saying: "oh by the way I changed my mind I want to come back", but more likely other "political" and/or alliances changes at the top letting that be even possible.
Have you read the comments in question?
> willingly resigned
Voluntary suicides are in your pipeline as well, no? Dictatorship sure doesn’t innovate.
Voluntary suicides are in your pipeline as well, no? Dictatorship sure doesn’t innovate.
Nah, it works better when you make it possible for the monsters and demons to discover the error of their ways and redeem themselves in a voluntary labor camp.
> "he once hit on me and I had to reject him". The latter is perfectly normal behavior unless you propose we criminalize being a man.
If you are a superior to the person in question, I don't agree that it's normal behavior. In that case you put that person in a very tough position. Same for teacher/student.
That's also why a lot of companies have a policy against that. Notice how I didn't specify the genders, since it doesn't really matter.
If you are a superior to the person in question, I don't agree that it's normal behavior. In that case you put that person in a very tough position. Same for teacher/student.
That's also why a lot of companies have a policy against that. Notice how I didn't specify the genders, since it doesn't really matter.
What about befriending superiors? What if I refuse to befriend them? Wouldn’t they retaliate? Can I mention my favorite sports team at work?
I consider prisoners and children/mentally unfit taboo. The rest is human and not per se bad or to be forbidden. Obviously some setups carry more risk.
I consider prisoners and children/mentally unfit taboo. The rest is human and not per se bad or to be forbidden. Obviously some setups carry more risk.
I see no problem with any of those things.
But I still see a problem with making a move onto a subordinate, which can put that person in a very awkward position. Same way as you don't hit on your friend's partner. Some people are just off limits. If they want something, it's up to them to make the first move.
But I still see a problem with making a move onto a subordinate, which can put that person in a very awkward position. Same way as you don't hit on your friend's partner. Some people are just off limits. If they want something, it's up to them to make the first move.
I find it embarrassing that this is the top comment on this post. Not only is this comment mostly incoherent, it's pretty far from the facts at hand. These aren't hard to find, you can search Google or read the paragraph on Stallman's Wikipedia page.[0]
Richard Stallman attempt to defend Marvin Minsky's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein was offensive. CNet[1] has a recap of the email thread (I believe Motherboard first reported it[2]) if you are interested in the details. The part highlighted by CNet was this:
>Stallman's resignation comes just days after Motherboard published an email thread in which Stallman suggests that "most plausible scenario" is that one of Epstein's underage victims "presented herself to [former colleague Marvin Minsky] as entirely willing."
>When someone else on the thread points out that Virginia Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky, a pioneer in artificial intelligence and founder of the Media Lab, Stallman argued that "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."
In my opinion, this is very different from someone claiming that Stallman "made them feel uncomfortable".
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/computer-scientist-richard-stallma...
[2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...
Richard Stallman attempt to defend Marvin Minsky's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein was offensive. CNet[1] has a recap of the email thread (I believe Motherboard first reported it[2]) if you are interested in the details. The part highlighted by CNet was this:
>Stallman's resignation comes just days after Motherboard published an email thread in which Stallman suggests that "most plausible scenario" is that one of Epstein's underage victims "presented herself to [former colleague Marvin Minsky] as entirely willing."
>When someone else on the thread points out that Virginia Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky, a pioneer in artificial intelligence and founder of the Media Lab, Stallman argued that "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."
In my opinion, this is very different from someone claiming that Stallman "made them feel uncomfortable".
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/computer-scientist-richard-stallma...
[2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...
Just to be clear, are you saying that you disagree with Stallman, that we _should_ morally define rape depending on the country it was committed in?
That is to say, if a 16yo had sex with an adult in Niagara Falls, ON where the age of consent is 16, then no moral crime had been committed, but if the two crossed over to New York where the law states 17, then the elder of the two is a rapist in your eyes? I believe that's the point Stallman was trying to make, and I'm curious to hear if you dsiagree.
That is to say, if a 16yo had sex with an adult in Niagara Falls, ON where the age of consent is 16, then no moral crime had been committed, but if the two crossed over to New York where the law states 17, then the elder of the two is a rapist in your eyes? I believe that's the point Stallman was trying to make, and I'm curious to hear if you dsiagree.
The commenter is saying that the poster perhaps deliberately mischaracterised the actual complaints against Stallman to belittle the complaint and that's embarrassing.
I'm trying to understand what you are accusing him of... but I don't actually see any actions or conduct towards real life individuals.
It seems like you're offended by his opinions to the point that you think he should be removed from his career - which also has nothing to do with the subject of the comments he made.
I'm also glad you posted his specific comments so that people can see what all this drama is about - instead of the vague name-calling.
On the surface, his two comments seem at least rational - even if I don't agree with them. Is it "moral" to define the same act as "rape" depending upon which country it occurs? That's a pretty reasonable question. Is it plausible than the victim in the case above "presented herself" as willing? I don't know - that's plausible I suppose, isn't it?
What's so heinous about these comments that you think he should have his career destroyed?
It seems like you're offended by his opinions to the point that you think he should be removed from his career - which also has nothing to do with the subject of the comments he made.
I'm also glad you posted his specific comments so that people can see what all this drama is about - instead of the vague name-calling.
On the surface, his two comments seem at least rational - even if I don't agree with them. Is it "moral" to define the same act as "rape" depending upon which country it occurs? That's a pretty reasonable question. Is it plausible than the victim in the case above "presented herself" as willing? I don't know - that's plausible I suppose, isn't it?
What's so heinous about these comments that you think he should have his career destroyed?
This is even worse. So this is not about he did something? Just he voiced his opinion on something?
Do you even mob justice bro?
1) Stallman was attempting to morally distinguish sex with a minor who was being coerced by a third party with rape or assault. He wasn't saying that the former is right, only that it's less bad than the latter, and that the distinction is important. You can say "he shouldn't have approached such a radioactive topic" but the moral philosopher in Stallman compelled him to; not addressing it meant conceding defeat to people who conflate less bad actions with worse actions for their own gain. For example, to name one closer to Stallman's wheelhouse: conflating copyright infringement with theft. Or piracy. The very fact that sexual offenses are radioactive provides ample opportunity for information and context to be lost about the nature and severity of a deed, and this has dire real-world consequences for people. People end up on sex-offender registries for life for relatively innocuous offenses like peeing on the side of the road or being that weird kid who tried to kiss a girl in his elementary school class. Do you think the report of the offense will say "oh yeah, he was a weird kid who didn't know how to act appropriately around girls back in the fifth grade, but a talking to from the principal set him straight"? No, it will say "INDCNT ASSAULT, VICTIM UNDER 12". What do you think that means to anyone reading the report? Like a neighbor, landlord, or employer? That's why these moral distinctions are important.
2) At least two eyewitnesses, including Minsky's widow, claimed that Minsky turned down Epstein's girl. He only took money from Epstein back before it was widely known that Epstein was a perv. At what point do we say "let's not drag Minsky's name any further through the mud"? Should we disbelieve these accounts because #BelieveAllWomen? Should we assume that Minsky did in fact have sex with Epstein's girl because of a "context" in which Minsky's friends and associates are known, or thought, or assumed, to have done likewise? Should we adopt a Wikipedia-like standard of evidence wherein the abridged, quoted out of context, sometimes heavily distorted press accounts are considered more authoritative than reports from people who were there?
2) At least two eyewitnesses, including Minsky's widow, claimed that Minsky turned down Epstein's girl. He only took money from Epstein back before it was widely known that Epstein was a perv. At what point do we say "let's not drag Minsky's name any further through the mud"? Should we disbelieve these accounts because #BelieveAllWomen? Should we assume that Minsky did in fact have sex with Epstein's girl because of a "context" in which Minsky's friends and associates are known, or thought, or assumed, to have done likewise? Should we adopt a Wikipedia-like standard of evidence wherein the abridged, quoted out of context, sometimes heavily distorted press accounts are considered more authoritative than reports from people who were there?
This was not mob justice. There was decades of poor behavior here, he wasn't pushed out because of this singular event.
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
So 0.0001% of his messages, most of which were said at a time when the Internet/Usenet was an innocent substitute for the local pub, are offensive to some.
And we say that's "decades of poor behavior"!
80% of the population says random stuff that is a 100x worse at parties.
It this article is not an impersonation, it is pretty sad that such self-righteous and intransigent statements come from a Gregorian friar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bushnell
And we say that's "decades of poor behavior"!
80% of the population says random stuff that is a 100x worse at parties.
It this article is not an impersonation, it is pretty sad that such self-righteous and intransigent statements come from a Gregorian friar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bushnell
Yet some other women defend him, including Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU.
https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
[deleted]
What you are saying here would get you cancelled 100 times over if you were a public person, sadly.
Once upon a time there was a dude with such an attitude and he became a president.
Edit: And his story is not over yet. Apparently.
The difference is, in American politics there are two very distinct polarized sides, and the one he was running for doesn't really care about this kind of thing very much. It's much worse when your own side is the one "cancelling" you.
Yeah, being rich is a great insulator. But RMS isn't rich.
I think that's true and it definitely shows how cancel culture only hurts some people but doesn't hurt others that much depending on their wealth and their influence. That said, really add to the discussion for others who aren't that powerful relatively.
Trump? Clinton? Kennedy? Johnson? I suspect that the shorter list would be the list of non-womanizing presidents.
It goes to show that it's not regular people who create 'cancel culture'. It's the financial elite. They do it as means to push forward a financial agenda. If those who orchestrate the cancellations were who they portray themselves to be, the hypocrisy would be brain-splitting.
The only reason their brain lobes are still attached together is because they know that they're being deceptive and it's part of an agenda.
It's not possible for a rational, cohesive mind to believe that a person who dedicated his whole life to free software is a bad person just because he once said something without thinking through it.
The only reason their brain lobes are still attached together is because they know that they're being deceptive and it's part of an agenda.
It's not possible for a rational, cohesive mind to believe that a person who dedicated his whole life to free software is a bad person just because he once said something without thinking through it.
It's not possible for a rational, cohesive mind to
believe that a person who dedicated his whole life
to free software is a bad person just because he once
said something without thinking through it.
1. Few if any are claiming RMS is "a bad person" in totality. While I realize the internet is no place for nuance, please understand the question is about whether somebody who's said these things is fit to lead or represent an institution. You can disagree or disagree with that. But please understand that is the question, not "is Richard Stallman a bad person." I certainly don't think he is.
2. "once said something without thinking through it" -- unfortunately this displays a spectacular misunderstanding. These are multiple things said over multiple years on mailing lists, his site, and so forth. Additionally, RMS's communiques are... well, they are not off-the-cuff. I've read reams of his statements over the years. They are the writings of somebody speaking very very deliberately about things he has reasoned through in very deliberate ways according to his beliefs.
>> Few if any are claiming RMS is "a bad person" in totality
I used the word 'believe' for a reason, it's people's beliefs who drove him out in the first place. Besides, the term 'stawman argument' makes no sense when discussing ethics or human behavior. This is not math or engineering. These kinds of statements are necessarily axiomatic; either you understand it or you don't. Either it neatly fits into your logical understanding of the world or it doesn't.
I wouldn't write off someone who has done such great things for so many decades when I know for a fact that most people in positions of power today are hypocritical monsters (only difference is that they have good PR teams to manage their public images); you need to put it in perspective.
I used the word 'believe' for a reason, it's people's beliefs who drove him out in the first place. Besides, the term 'stawman argument' makes no sense when discussing ethics or human behavior. This is not math or engineering. These kinds of statements are necessarily axiomatic; either you understand it or you don't. Either it neatly fits into your logical understanding of the world or it doesn't.
I wouldn't write off someone who has done such great things for so many decades when I know for a fact that most people in positions of power today are hypocritical monsters (only difference is that they have good PR teams to manage their public images); you need to put it in perspective.
I think some cancellations are driven by powerful people but I'd say most are definitely organic.
Enter the cartoon with a banker with the mob outside all "occupy wall street" on the phone with his PR firm, instructing them to the tell the mob "what identity politics is".
[deleted]
Hear hear! We as a civilization have an organization for dealing with these kinds of issues, its called the police. If assault happens, immediately go to the police and report your issue. Watching non-law enforcement agencies get involved in criminal matters has been an utter clusterfuck.
I would entirely agree but police also have a horrible track record when it comes to these things. The mob justice happens because the cops can’t be trusted to do justice, and haven’t been shown themselves worthy of that trust for generations when it comes to sexual assault. (Sometimes the cops themselves are the ones doing the assaulting!)
Does mob justice have a wonderful track record? Just because police and justice system are not perfect doesn't mean that the "alternative" is the one that should be considered right.
I think mob justice has a horrible track record! I think it happens because the public has lost all faith in police, which is equally horrible.
Yeah. Unless cops are all saints we should rely on mob justice.
We should not - it's a dangerous idea which gets people's lives destroyed. "Innocent until guilty" is an important concept which mob justice often forgets which causes a lot of damage.
Just because one system is broken, doesn't mean that we have to replace it with another broken one.
Just because one system is broken, doesn't mean that we have to replace it with another broken one.
For the record, I disagree with mob justice! I just also disagree that cops can be relied on right now for sexual assault cases. Currently, there is no real fair place for sexual assault victims to reliably receive real justice, and that is a tragedy in of itself.
Why are you mischaracterising this? Complaints that "he make me feel uncomfortable". Isn't the reason he ran into problems.
In a deposition, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims said Epstein he instructed her to have sex with with the late Marvin Minsky of MIT.
RMS jumped to Minsky's defence, nitpicking about whether whether this could really be “sexual assault,” since the young woman, he reasoned, would have seemed to be presenting herself to Minsky willingly.
Whether or not, you think Stallman deserved the level of aprobium that hit him, it's nothing to do with accusations against RMS himself that he made anyone feel uncomfortable. Or "he once hit on me and I had to reject him"
And then you have the temerity to include, in this masterpiece of misdirection, the question: "Why are women always presumed to be innocent and men always presumed to be guilty?".
In a deposition, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims said Epstein he instructed her to have sex with with the late Marvin Minsky of MIT.
RMS jumped to Minsky's defence, nitpicking about whether whether this could really be “sexual assault,” since the young woman, he reasoned, would have seemed to be presenting herself to Minsky willingly.
Whether or not, you think Stallman deserved the level of aprobium that hit him, it's nothing to do with accusations against RMS himself that he made anyone feel uncomfortable. Or "he once hit on me and I had to reject him"
And then you have the temerity to include, in this masterpiece of misdirection, the question: "Why are women always presumed to be innocent and men always presumed to be guilty?".
I wonder why some people draw such ire and others don't? For example, I'm surprised Charlie Munger hasn't been canceled yet. That old dude says whatever the hell he likes and DGAF.
Anyway, I'm glad we have strong, independent voices in the world, and that not everyone has been brainwashed by sensitivity training.
Anyway, I'm glad we have strong, independent voices in the world, and that not everyone has been brainwashed by sensitivity training.
I agree. On the racism side of the cancellation coin, you have ordinary people canceled for citing the preeminent scholar on the efficacy of nonviolent protest (who also happens to be black) and Tweeting an interview in which a black man expresses concern over black-on-black crime; however, you have the Canadian PM going around in blackface so often he can’t even keep count by his own admission and he’s regarded as basically a lovable goofball darling by the cancel culture folks while the others are “literal Nazis” or something. Mob justice isn’t great at assessing guilt or determining proportional sentences, but some people will defend it to the death.
Mob justice only exists because regular justice is not effective against sexual harassment. Victims have no other choice than do "justice" publicly.
Fixing the justice system is the best solution. Only then we can cancel cancel-culture.
> Mob justice only exists because regular justice is not effective against sexual harassment.
I challenge this assertion. I think mob justice would still exist even if we had omniscient judges who could administer perfect justice in every scenario.
Mob justice is intoxicating. Mob justice is exhilarating. Mob justice can make you feel "a part of something" or "making history". Cancel culture extends far beyond sexual harassment. Mob justice is not about justice for most of the people in the mob. It's about wielding power over your peers. It's about squashing your ideological opponents from a position of faux righteousness.
I challenge this assertion. I think mob justice would still exist even if we had omniscient judges who could administer perfect justice in every scenario.
Mob justice is intoxicating. Mob justice is exhilarating. Mob justice can make you feel "a part of something" or "making history". Cancel culture extends far beyond sexual harassment. Mob justice is not about justice for most of the people in the mob. It's about wielding power over your peers. It's about squashing your ideological opponents from a position of faux righteousness.
Were there any allegations of him doing unwanted flirting? This post seems to be conflating rms' cancellation with other people's unwanted behavior.
His inappropriate behavior toward women is well documented. One example where women traded advice on how to keep him away.
https://mobile.twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/99426727746...
https://mobile.twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/99426727746...
>Star Simpson @starsandrobots Replying to @corbett
>I remember being walked around campus by an upperclassman getting advice during my freshman year at MIT. "Look at all the plants in her office," referring to a professor. "All the women CSAIL professors keep massive amounts of foliage" s/he said. "Stallman really hates plants."
Star is correct: RMS really hates plants, and is afraid of trees.
>I remember being walked around campus by an upperclassman getting advice during my freshman year at MIT. "Look at all the plants in her office," referring to a professor. "All the women CSAIL professors keep massive amounts of foliage" s/he said. "Stallman really hates plants."
Star is correct: RMS really hates plants, and is afraid of trees.
This is hearsay...if it is well documented may be it would help to provide an example of bad behavior from someone who dealt with it directly.
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
Among other examples:
“When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. I felt bad for him and also uncomfortable and manipulated. I did not like being put in that position — suddenly responsible for an “important” man. What had I done to get into this situation? I decided I could not be responsible for his living or dying, and would have to accept him killing himself. I declined further contact. He was not a man of his word or he’d be long dead.” —Betsy S., Bachelor’s in Management Science, ’85
His social cluelessness is legendary--no one really disputes it. Why it wouldn't be true toward women as well, I have no idea.
I'm sure you will find a way to dismiss this, but there are plenty of stories out there if you look.
Among other examples:
“When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. I felt bad for him and also uncomfortable and manipulated. I did not like being put in that position — suddenly responsible for an “important” man. What had I done to get into this situation? I decided I could not be responsible for his living or dying, and would have to accept him killing himself. I declined further contact. He was not a man of his word or he’d be long dead.” —Betsy S., Bachelor’s in Management Science, ’85
His social cluelessness is legendary--no one really disputes it. Why it wouldn't be true toward women as well, I have no idea.
I'm sure you will find a way to dismiss this, but there are plenty of stories out there if you look.
yread(6)
> We went from "he grabbed me by the pussy"
I hate having to write this. But this is one of the biggest examples of fakenews out there that “our side” is ok with because we want to be lied to.
As awful as he was, not a single woman ever actually accused Trump of this. His statements were off record to in discussion about how women react when you are famous.
We didn’t even go from “he grabbed me by the pussy”. We went from the actual quote ”and when you a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything”. [0]
If we’re going to call out fake things and being intellectually honest about accusations and “canceling”, let’s start close to home first.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595321
I hate having to write this. But this is one of the biggest examples of fakenews out there that “our side” is ok with because we want to be lied to.
As awful as he was, not a single woman ever actually accused Trump of this. His statements were off record to in discussion about how women react when you are famous.
We didn’t even go from “he grabbed me by the pussy”. We went from the actual quote ”and when you a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything”. [0]
If we’re going to call out fake things and being intellectually honest about accusations and “canceling”, let’s start close to home first.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595321
It's always fascinating to me that the free speech crowd can't stand seeing people facing consequences for exercising that right.
Wonderful news!
I recall https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... happening at the same time as the FSF incident, which fortunately didn't pan out.
It felt to me that we were attempting to purge a man from his life work, for...What? I'm still not sure, a vague allegation of alienation of a hypothetical future user base.
I found the whole thing distasteful, and moved away from guix as a consequence. I do in earnest hope they rescind their statement - if nothing else the timing of it was terrible, like they were jumping on a bandwagon.
I recall https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... happening at the same time as the FSF incident, which fortunately didn't pan out.
It felt to me that we were attempting to purge a man from his life work, for...What? I'm still not sure, a vague allegation of alienation of a hypothetical future user base.
I found the whole thing distasteful, and moved away from guix as a consequence. I do in earnest hope they rescind their statement - if nothing else the timing of it was terrible, like they were jumping on a bandwagon.
The canary has been resuscitated... while I don't agree with everything he says, I think we do need an extremist or two to keep the fringes of opinion where they are.
I am quite fine with RMS being a software freedom zealot. I don't agree with his extremist views but agree that there is value in that kind of fringe existing.
This does not extend to some or many of his other expressed views and behaviors outside of the realm of software freedom.
This does not extend to some or many of his other expressed views and behaviors outside of the realm of software freedom.
Stallman is a bastion of software freedom in a world turning progressively dark. The fact that he never ever compromised his ideals and principles, never sold out and has been repeatedly proven prescient and absolutely on the money on countless issues, makes him someone that we should strive to protect.
There are many invididuals in the Free Software world that backstabbed RMS and tried to destroy him with malicious character attacks. Here is one example:
https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and...
Has Andy Wingo apologized?
There are many invididuals in the Free Software world that backstabbed RMS and tried to destroy him with malicious character attacks. Here is one example:
https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and...
Has Andy Wingo apologized?
For what would this person be apologizing?
I'm not sure I understand your logic. It seems to me that we should be wary of our impulse to be protective of people whose principles we support. We often don't want to hear about the problematic things those people do.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. It seems to me that we should be wary of our impulse to be protective of people whose principles we support. We often don't want to hear about the problematic things those people do.
> Stallman is a bastion of software freedom
In my judgement, he has done marginally more good than harm. Under his leadership the FSF has had only limited impact. Mirroring his own behavior, it has instead often wasted money and good will tilting at windmills instead of of effecting change.
I support the ideals of software freedom, but I do not support the FSF or Richard Stallman. He was key to getting the ball rolling decades ago, but has mostly been a distraction and impediment since then. Other projects, such as Debian and Mozilla, have made far larger contributions over the past couple decades.
In my judgement, he has done marginally more good than harm. Under his leadership the FSF has had only limited impact. Mirroring his own behavior, it has instead often wasted money and good will tilting at windmills instead of of effecting change.
I support the ideals of software freedom, but I do not support the FSF or Richard Stallman. He was key to getting the ball rolling decades ago, but has mostly been a distraction and impediment since then. Other projects, such as Debian and Mozilla, have made far larger contributions over the past couple decades.
Wikipedia was tied up in a code documentation license (GFDL) that didn't really make sense for it. Stallman allowed it to be relicensed into creative commons, someone else's baby.
Many people in the same position would have let their ego take control and keep it under the license they created or were most associated with out of pride.
Many people in the same position would have let their ego take control and keep it under the license they created or were most associated with out of pride.
Andy Wingo was and still is right, and more people should say it publicly. What he wrote then had been widely believed among many free software developers - including many who had worked closely with the FSF and with GNU - for years, but the public worship of RMS was too strong for any of the people doing the actual work to say anything without getting seen as traitors to the movement by people like you. He and the other GNU maintainers who wrote that statement called out an accurate problem, and the free software movement would have been stronger had RMS and the FSF listened.
Every single thing that RMS refused to compromise on has been a weakness for the cause of software freedom. RMS didn't compromise on his technical vision for GNU's kernel, and the HURD barely works today. RMS didn't compromise on allowing GCC to have an IR, and LLVM, a weak-copyleft compiler, has caught up. RMS didn't compromise on his personal unwillingness to use non-free JS on the web and basically decided to ignore the web entirely as a result, and it was basically an abandonment of setting any strategic direction for the free software movement re the web. We have a whole generation of folks who are ready to insist that "open source" means anything on GitHub, license or no license.
We could have had a victorious free software movement. What we got was a cult of personality.
Every single thing that RMS refused to compromise on has been a weakness for the cause of software freedom. RMS didn't compromise on his technical vision for GNU's kernel, and the HURD barely works today. RMS didn't compromise on allowing GCC to have an IR, and LLVM, a weak-copyleft compiler, has caught up. RMS didn't compromise on his personal unwillingness to use non-free JS on the web and basically decided to ignore the web entirely as a result, and it was basically an abandonment of setting any strategic direction for the free software movement re the web. We have a whole generation of folks who are ready to insist that "open source" means anything on GitHub, license or no license.
We could have had a victorious free software movement. What we got was a cult of personality.
I concur: Wingo's opinion is widely shared within GNU, and I wrote about it a few months ago, too:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25193674
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25193674
[deleted]
The whole deal[0] was a character assassination campaign.
[0] https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
[0] https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
This is an abridged view looking at a couple of statements and news articles from a few days in September 2019. The free software community's frustration with Richard Stallman had been going on for many, many years before then. The most you can say is that it provided a public impetus for the organization to act, and perhaps that public impetus was driven by journalists who misread his words.
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
> I have been silent the last month because, until two days ago, I was an at-large member of FSF's Board of Directors, and a Voting Member of the FSF. As a member of FSF's two leadership bodies, I was abiding by a reasonable request from the FSF management and my duty to the organization. [...]
> For the last two years, I had been a loud internal voice in the FSF leadership regarding RMS' Free-Software-unrelated public statements; I felt strongly that it was in the best interest of the FSF to actively seek to limit such statements, and that it was my duty to FSF to speak out about this within the organization. Those who only learned of this story in the last month (understandably) believed Selam G.'s Medium post raised an entirely new issue. In fact, RMS' views and statements posted on stallman.org about sexual morality escalated for the worse over the last few years. When the escalation started, I still considered RMS both a friend and colleague, and I attempted to argue with him at length to convince him that some of his positions were harmful to sexual assault survivors and those who are sex-trafficked, and to the people who devote their lives in service to such individuals. More importantly to the FSF, I attempted to persuade RMS that launching a controversial campaign on sexual behavior and morality was counter to his and FSF's mission to advance software freedom, and told RMS that my duty as an FSF Director was to assure the best outcome for the FSF, which IMO didn't include having a leader who made such statements.
(Copious internal links evidencing those claims omitted, check the original.)
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
> I have been silent the last month because, until two days ago, I was an at-large member of FSF's Board of Directors, and a Voting Member of the FSF. As a member of FSF's two leadership bodies, I was abiding by a reasonable request from the FSF management and my duty to the organization. [...]
> For the last two years, I had been a loud internal voice in the FSF leadership regarding RMS' Free-Software-unrelated public statements; I felt strongly that it was in the best interest of the FSF to actively seek to limit such statements, and that it was my duty to FSF to speak out about this within the organization. Those who only learned of this story in the last month (understandably) believed Selam G.'s Medium post raised an entirely new issue. In fact, RMS' views and statements posted on stallman.org about sexual morality escalated for the worse over the last few years. When the escalation started, I still considered RMS both a friend and colleague, and I attempted to argue with him at length to convince him that some of his positions were harmful to sexual assault survivors and those who are sex-trafficked, and to the people who devote their lives in service to such individuals. More importantly to the FSF, I attempted to persuade RMS that launching a controversial campaign on sexual behavior and morality was counter to his and FSF's mission to advance software freedom, and told RMS that my duty as an FSF Director was to assure the best outcome for the FSF, which IMO didn't include having a leader who made such statements.
(Copious internal links evidencing those claims omitted, check the original.)
No need to apologize for expressing their opinion, neither on RMS's part nor on the part of his detractors. What purpose is served? Both expressed their (presumably) legitimately held opinions, that is their right.
Why should they apologize? Everything they say is true.
GNU software absolutely has been stagnating for the past 2 decades under Stallman's leadership. It is a little known fact that in 2005, there was an offer to merge the LLVM project into GCC, and assign the entire copyright to GNU. The patches to do so were even submitted. [0]
They were rejected [1], because GNU wasn't interested in producing a modular compiler. They thought that if the compiler was allowed to be modular, then it might be used by proprietary software behind their backs.
But it turns out that modular compilers are generally quite useful, even for huge quantities of FOSS software. So the LLVM project continues, outside of GNU, and here we are 15 years later and essentially all academic research, and all new tooling development, happens in the LLVM ecosystem. Massive self-inflicted wound.
And yet, the stonewalling [2] and bridge-burning [3] [4] continued, long past the point of rationality. Continuing to object to development of useful tools even after the damage was done. At this point, just pissing off a lot of people who were interested in doing the work to help improve the usefulness of GCC.
And not limited to this topic, either. Such as when Stallman decided to leverage his "veto power" in opposition to removing an abortion joke from the glibc manual, against the consensus of nearly all of the glibc core team, despite not having contributed to glibc himself in years. [5]
And if I was interested in continuing to dig through mailing list archives, I could probably pull out a bunch more examples.
[0] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU4MzE
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...
[2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
[3] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
[4] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
[5] https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/
GNU software absolutely has been stagnating for the past 2 decades under Stallman's leadership. It is a little known fact that in 2005, there was an offer to merge the LLVM project into GCC, and assign the entire copyright to GNU. The patches to do so were even submitted. [0]
They were rejected [1], because GNU wasn't interested in producing a modular compiler. They thought that if the compiler was allowed to be modular, then it might be used by proprietary software behind their backs.
But it turns out that modular compilers are generally quite useful, even for huge quantities of FOSS software. So the LLVM project continues, outside of GNU, and here we are 15 years later and essentially all academic research, and all new tooling development, happens in the LLVM ecosystem. Massive self-inflicted wound.
And yet, the stonewalling [2] and bridge-burning [3] [4] continued, long past the point of rationality. Continuing to object to development of useful tools even after the damage was done. At this point, just pissing off a lot of people who were interested in doing the work to help improve the usefulness of GCC.
And not limited to this topic, either. Such as when Stallman decided to leverage his "veto power" in opposition to removing an abortion joke from the glibc manual, against the consensus of nearly all of the glibc core team, despite not having contributed to glibc himself in years. [5]
And if I was interested in continuing to dig through mailing list archives, I could probably pull out a bunch more examples.
[0] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU4MzE
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...
[2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
[3] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
[4] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00...
[5] https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/
Thanks for mentioning this. I think you missed the actual message where LLVM was offered to the FSF:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg01112.html
Even within active GNU projects, this egregious incidence of mismanagement is still not widely known, although many maintainers of active GNU projects have their own stories of when Stallman's ignorance of a subject led him to make poor decisions.
For at least a decade, his near-total ignorance of how people (billions of them!) use computers has been encouraged and deepened by the sycophantic acolytes who encourage him to ignore developments in computing, like the ostrich with its head in the sand.
All the while, the FSF and GNU can do less and less for the users who are stuck living in the dystopia that he predicted in the 80s and 90s.
It's as if, after the first time they booted a computer with a fully-free operating system, they declared the work to be complete, abandoning the future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg01112.html
Even within active GNU projects, this egregious incidence of mismanagement is still not widely known, although many maintainers of active GNU projects have their own stories of when Stallman's ignorance of a subject led him to make poor decisions.
For at least a decade, his near-total ignorance of how people (billions of them!) use computers has been encouraged and deepened by the sycophantic acolytes who encourage him to ignore developments in computing, like the ostrich with its head in the sand.
All the while, the FSF and GNU can do less and less for the users who are stuck living in the dystopia that he predicted in the 80s and 90s.
It's as if, after the first time they booted a computer with a fully-free operating system, they declared the work to be complete, abandoning the future.
I linked the phoronix article which links to them -- but then accidentally overwrote it with another link. Fixed.
> For at least a decade, his near-total ignorance of how people (billions of them!) use computers has been encouraged and deepened by the sycophantic acolytes who encourage him to ignore developments in computing, like the ostrich with its head in the sand.
Can you expand on this point? I don't doubt you, but I'd like to know more.
Can you expand on this point? I don't doubt you, but I'd like to know more.
To be fair, I highly prefer the situation it lead to, with now some competition between GCC and LLVM/Clang. But sure it was not rejected with that outcome in mind. However, some may not like the reasoning behind the unwillingness to move toward a more modular compiler at the time, but there certainly was a reasoning, and we will never know if the expected risks would have occurred in practice for GCC because later other ways were found to mitigate them.
The LLVM world has moved to a non-copyleft one, with results that RMS maybe considers mixed: on one hand it attracts work (but being non-copyleft is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition, and for ex Linux attracts way more work by being copyleft), on the other hand RMS does not think that helping to create proprietary software based on free software is a good idea (of course the main purpose of a compiler is to compile software, even proprietary ones, but the philosophical issues come when you can make proprietary derivatives of the compiler or parts of it, not merely use it)
In the end, for a supposedly stagnant project, GNU is not doing bad. It is still an essential part of mainstream Linux based systems. It is being actively developed. GCC is moving fast and also attracts lots of work nowadays.
OpenOffice is stagnant. GNU? Not that much.
The LLVM world has moved to a non-copyleft one, with results that RMS maybe considers mixed: on one hand it attracts work (but being non-copyleft is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition, and for ex Linux attracts way more work by being copyleft), on the other hand RMS does not think that helping to create proprietary software based on free software is a good idea (of course the main purpose of a compiler is to compile software, even proprietary ones, but the philosophical issues come when you can make proprietary derivatives of the compiler or parts of it, not merely use it)
In the end, for a supposedly stagnant project, GNU is not doing bad. It is still an essential part of mainstream Linux based systems. It is being actively developed. GCC is moving fast and also attracts lots of work nowadays.
OpenOffice is stagnant. GNU? Not that much.
I knew the maintainer of GNU libtool and I remember him getting randomly fired by Stallman one day because he was a macOS user, and therefore not motivated enough to support free software OS uses.
Pretty shitty to do this to an actual maintainer, but on the other hand I wish the Linux Foundation started doing this.
Pretty shitty to do this to anyone. The only scenario where firing someone for (legally) using a certain software should be allowed to happen is where it was communicated clearly in advance that using that software is not allowed in that particular job position.
IMO the strongest plausible interpretation of what the comment you’re replying to said would include the Linux Foundation clearly communicating the new practice beforehand.
Why? Writing a tool - even an operating system kernel - doesn't mean that that tool is appropriate for everything (for instance, for everyday use). Linux does many things great - a fair number of them industry-leading - but desktop user experience is not one of them and has never been close to being so.
Sure, but I still think that the Linux Foundation should represent Linux and not Microsoft.
[deleted]
Apologize for what? What in his statement should be apologize for? It's an op-ed that the author himself qualifies with a fairly clear sense of wat exists "on the ground" and his opinion about it, both positive and negative.
Frankly, Stallman has been a boat-anchor to his own cause more than much else for a while, and he is IMHO a vile little imp; his poor hygiene, both physical and emotional, and his chronic id-salving, went through their mileage before the current millennium started, let alone a few decades in.
Frankly, Stallman has been a boat-anchor to his own cause more than much else for a while, and he is IMHO a vile little imp; his poor hygiene, both physical and emotional, and his chronic id-salving, went through their mileage before the current millennium started, let alone a few decades in.
>his poor hygiene
The social hygiene movement represented a rationalized, professionalized version of the earlier social purity movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hygiene_movement
The social hygiene movement represented a rationalized, professionalized version of the earlier social purity movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hygiene_movement
Thing veiled lookism.
People here think he must be autistic and hard to work with because he's ugly and old and dirty.
Maybe you (the collective you) should actually stop assuming that dirty people are incompetent.
People here think he must be autistic and hard to work with because he's ugly and old and dirty.
Maybe you (the collective you) should actually stop assuming that dirty people are incompetent.
Not to my knowledge and he most likely never will. Attacking traditional social values is more important to some people than Free Software. Having people with stronger beliefs about unrelated issues that take precedence over the goals of the organization is a recipe for disaster and ultimately failure. I suspect RMS agreed to concessions such as allowing GNU to go in a direction where these unrelated political issues will increasingly drive decision making and force out major contributors who disagree with them. Time will tell.
I am here to say I am pleased to see RMS active in software issues again.
I am a fan of his ideas related to software, and his gift to us has paid me and most of my peers off over and over. Tons of others have added to all that and here we are today.
Personally, I will consider what he says about software, data, IP.
The man is not often wrong. Has a lot to say, and he should be heard.
There are other issues, and that is all quite difficult. Painful. I would say unnecessary, but I know better, save to say I do not see that in terms of bad intent. I do see a very different set of priorities. Not speaking to right or wrong here, just understanding and a desire to move open ideas further along, bolster them to endure.
I sincerely hope everyone involved can help keep the focus where it counts.
I do not plan on speaking to RMS as a person, nor giving his opinions weight outside of computing freedom. Given these times, an RMS, however painful, seems necessary.
I just want the software, data, IP vision to endure, thrive and continue to deliver far more use value than any one contributor adds or user invests. He can really help to do that, and I think he should.
OSS is a beautiful thing.
I remember the first time I heard about GNU. Was profound.
Took a while, and the likes of ESR and others who took the time to write and speak to people like me seeking to grok it all.
Unlike physical goods and services, software can be a multiplier. The whole is greater than the parts. We can, and often easily do, get more than we may give.
These ideas have empowered people all over the world.
And they range from curious, driven people of little means dumpster diving to get going through to others who may want for nothing, all able to pick up the body of OSS code and open data and run with it.
I feel deeply our actions, law, norms, expectations all set now will matter for a very long time.
Getting all that more right than wrong is going to touch pretty much everyone and the potential impacts are profound. The possible futures vary widely, and not just degrees of good. It could all be not so good at all.
Either way, this will all solidify.
Does not have to be bad. I sure hope it isn't.
I am a fan of his ideas related to software, and his gift to us has paid me and most of my peers off over and over. Tons of others have added to all that and here we are today.
Personally, I will consider what he says about software, data, IP.
The man is not often wrong. Has a lot to say, and he should be heard.
There are other issues, and that is all quite difficult. Painful. I would say unnecessary, but I know better, save to say I do not see that in terms of bad intent. I do see a very different set of priorities. Not speaking to right or wrong here, just understanding and a desire to move open ideas further along, bolster them to endure.
I sincerely hope everyone involved can help keep the focus where it counts.
I do not plan on speaking to RMS as a person, nor giving his opinions weight outside of computing freedom. Given these times, an RMS, however painful, seems necessary.
I just want the software, data, IP vision to endure, thrive and continue to deliver far more use value than any one contributor adds or user invests. He can really help to do that, and I think he should.
OSS is a beautiful thing.
I remember the first time I heard about GNU. Was profound.
Took a while, and the likes of ESR and others who took the time to write and speak to people like me seeking to grok it all.
Unlike physical goods and services, software can be a multiplier. The whole is greater than the parts. We can, and often easily do, get more than we may give.
These ideas have empowered people all over the world.
And they range from curious, driven people of little means dumpster diving to get going through to others who may want for nothing, all able to pick up the body of OSS code and open data and run with it.
I feel deeply our actions, law, norms, expectations all set now will matter for a very long time.
Getting all that more right than wrong is going to touch pretty much everyone and the potential impacts are profound. The possible futures vary widely, and not just degrees of good. It could all be not so good at all.
Either way, this will all solidify.
Does not have to be bad. I sure hope it isn't.
Genuine question, is there anything useful he has said in the last 10 years he has said you can point to?
He seems helplessly lost in the past, before the web, the explosion in javascript, etc. etc.
He seems helplessly lost in the past, before the web, the explosion in javascript, etc. etc.
It's not about having a mouthpiece. The point of him being at the helm, so to speak, is that he has, for lack of better words, put his money where his mouth is.
RMS can be trusted and depended upon to hold up the idea of free software and lead it. Cancellation mobs and political opportunists cannot be trusted, because they will never be satisfied with their agenda, and because they do not truly care about the foundations of FSF and GNU, and what they stand for.
In short, RMS has already said his piece. The main concern is his control and leadership for the organizations.
RMS can be trusted and depended upon to hold up the idea of free software and lead it. Cancellation mobs and political opportunists cannot be trusted, because they will never be satisfied with their agenda, and because they do not truly care about the foundations of FSF and GNU, and what they stand for.
In short, RMS has already said his piece. The main concern is his control and leadership for the organizations.
Can RMS will try to lead, but will he be successful?
Open source software has never been bigger, but the FSF, and Stallman, are nowhere to be seen. I see articles about Linus all the time.
I've seen him speak twice, and both times persuaded me mainly he is an awful speaker, and actively put much of his audience off joining the FSF (I saw a talk where he did his famous "it is our holy task to deflower the female Emacs virgins" joke).
Open source software has never been bigger, but the FSF, and Stallman, are nowhere to be seen. I see articles about Linus all the time.
I've seen him speak twice, and both times persuaded me mainly he is an awful speaker, and actively put much of his audience off joining the FSF (I saw a talk where he did his famous "it is our holy task to deflower the female Emacs virgins" joke).
>RMS can be trusted and depended upon to hold up the idea of free software and lead it.
Well said. I agree.
Well said. I agree.
Is there anything different today concerning software that makes his old words obsolete?
> before the web, the explosion in javascript
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
> before the web, the explosion in javascript
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
The fact that "JavaScript won". You can't put that genie back in the bottle.
The FSF could have been at the forefront, providing support and useful code under the GPL and LGPL. Instead very little web code is under their licences, because their leader won't interact with the modern web.
I teach CS undergrads, and they in the main don't even know what RMS and the FSF are.
The FSF could have been at the forefront, providing support and useful code under the GPL and LGPL. Instead very little web code is under their licences, because their leader won't interact with the modern web.
I teach CS undergrads, and they in the main don't even know what RMS and the FSF are.
> providing support and useful code under the GPL and LGPL
FSF cannot write all code in the world, this is relatively small organization. They do provide a lot of support AFAIK and explain how to make your javascript free. AFAIK Discourd forums and Mastodon are examples of free-javascript websites.
FSF cannot write all code in the world, this is relatively small organization. They do provide a lot of support AFAIK and explain how to make your javascript free. AFAIK Discourd forums and Mastodon are examples of free-javascript websites.
Avoiding closed devices, say ones that a person cannot write and run a program on without some sort of permission?
Old != wrong and or irrelevant
The FSF matters, the ideas matter. RMS is an important part of all that.
Web? Javascript? There is a big world of software out there.
Old != wrong and or irrelevant
The FSF matters, the ideas matter. RMS is an important part of all that.
Web? Javascript? There is a big world of software out there.
The problem is (in my mind), the FSF doesn't matter, and RMS is a major part of that. He pushed away the vast majority of the leading voices in open source over the years (I don't se meant major open source coders / project leaders defending or supporting him. Most dislike him).
This is simple:
Are the ideas worth it or not?
To me, they are worth some effort. How likable RMS happens to be is an entirely different matter.
And, frankly an excuse I have seen used to dodge a meaningful discussion about the ideas.
My only interest in RMS is related to those ideas, put another way.
Are the ideas worth it or not?
To me, they are worth some effort. How likable RMS happens to be is an entirely different matter.
And, frankly an excuse I have seen used to dodge a meaningful discussion about the ideas.
My only interest in RMS is related to those ideas, put another way.
RMS came to speak at my university. He probably did more damage to general student perception of anything associated with the FSF than industry-ass-kissing professors did in the 3 years prior in that one day. Thus if you want the ideas to succeed, you want to make them matter independently of the "brands" of RMS and FSF, especially now the FSF has decided it wants to continue to tie its "brand" to RMS going forward.
("brand" in quotes because it's not quite what we usually mean with that term, but I can't think of a better English word right now)
("brand" in quotes because it's not quite what we usually mean with that term, but I can't think of a better English word right now)
RMS literally created the thing.
Others can and should be doing active, mass outreach.
Leader does not have to mean public figure.
Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard.
Maybe the right thing to do here is firm up a 5 year plan, go on a donation drive and fund organizers, who can work the crowds.
Others can and should be doing active, mass outreach.
Leader does not have to mean public figure.
Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard.
Maybe the right thing to do here is firm up a 5 year plan, go on a donation drive and fund organizers, who can work the crowds.
I'd not bet anything on the FSF being capable or even just willing to commit to anything like that and seeing it through without sabotaging it or cancelling it because it stepped on someones toes internally. They do not appear to have a culture that would permit doing so, but rather one of focusing to much on backing RMS and driving people who might succeed at new ways of doing outreach away. Even if they didn't have RMS around anymore for whatever reason, it'd be far from given they'd migrate away from that culture successfully, there's more to this than him.
> Leader does not have to mean public figure.
> Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard.
This IMHO conflicts, you can't have a leader that you view as "has no peers in this regard" but has no public presence. Having the "weird extremists" (=really mean it) in some corner has some value, but negative perception of other traits hurts their usefulness in that role too.
Which is overall why I think supporting the ideas behind Free Software is best done outside that. Times have changed. If I'm wrong, I'll be positively surprised.
> Leader does not have to mean public figure.
> Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard.
This IMHO conflicts, you can't have a leader that you view as "has no peers in this regard" but has no public presence. Having the "weird extremists" (=really mean it) in some corner has some value, but negative perception of other traits hurts their usefulness in that role too.
Which is overall why I think supporting the ideas behind Free Software is best done outside that. Times have changed. If I'm wrong, I'll be positively surprised.
I didn't say no public presence.
What I did suggest what's a standard effort well-trodden ground to go out and do the public advocacy and Outreach.
And in terms of the ideas the leadership and all of that, I put that in my first comment. I sincerely hope people can keep the focus on the ideas.
Regarding the rest of your comments, they're valid, and solidarity on ideas is hard.
Software Freedom really matters to me. I'm willing to act with others to advance those ideas. I don't have to like some of the people all that much. Neither does anybody else.
And if we map this stuff onto well known politics, political organizing activities, what we've got here is a fight on our hands.
There's an awful lot of money very interested in letting some of these ideas prevail and the really important ones fall by the wayside or be co-opted.
Looking around at our side, the software freedom side, it looks kind of grim. We've got work to do.
And frankly, if enough of us don't prioritize this, do not value it highly, that work won't get done, these ideas die.
All of that is why I could give two shits who is likable or not. What I want to know is who's behind the ideas, who believes in them, who's willing to do work, and what that means, and how I can help.
And on that note, speaking of leadership, those are the things that need solid answers. Or, again, these ideas die.
What I did suggest what's a standard effort well-trodden ground to go out and do the public advocacy and Outreach.
And in terms of the ideas the leadership and all of that, I put that in my first comment. I sincerely hope people can keep the focus on the ideas.
Regarding the rest of your comments, they're valid, and solidarity on ideas is hard.
Software Freedom really matters to me. I'm willing to act with others to advance those ideas. I don't have to like some of the people all that much. Neither does anybody else.
And if we map this stuff onto well known politics, political organizing activities, what we've got here is a fight on our hands.
There's an awful lot of money very interested in letting some of these ideas prevail and the really important ones fall by the wayside or be co-opted.
Looking around at our side, the software freedom side, it looks kind of grim. We've got work to do.
And frankly, if enough of us don't prioritize this, do not value it highly, that work won't get done, these ideas die.
All of that is why I could give two shits who is likable or not. What I want to know is who's behind the ideas, who believes in them, who's willing to do work, and what that means, and how I can help.
And on that note, speaking of leadership, those are the things that need solid answers. Or, again, these ideas die.
So, let us frame it all up another way:
Forget RMS. Does the FSF matter to you personally?
Why or why not?
If it does matter, I submit the best course of action is to help others better understand.
If it does not matter?
...
Forget RMS. Does the FSF matter to you personally?
Why or why not?
If it does matter, I submit the best course of action is to help others better understand.
If it does not matter?
...
The FSF did matter. I was a member, I signed copyright papers and submitted a decent amount of patches to GCC, I went to see Stallman talk.
It became clear to me that while I agreed with many of Stallman's aims, I disagreed with how he treated people, particularly women. Also, he actively made decisions that, in my opinion, seriously hurt GCC. So I left.
It became clear to me that while I agreed with many of Stallman's aims, I disagreed with how he treated people, particularly women. Also, he actively made decisions that, in my opinion, seriously hurt GCC. So I left.
Again, are we talking about the ideas or Stallman?
None of that even moves the needle on how high value the ideas are for me.
What we are basically talking about here is solidarity on software freedom.
Acting in solidarity means priorities. This is why I am focused on ideas. Liking people is not as high of a priority as the software freedom is.
To put it bluntly: even my enemies, "those other people" benefit from greater software freedoms.
Having a strong anchor matters. Stallman is not going to dilute things down or be co-opted. Great.
Given the last decade, I definitely value those things highly.
You appear to have other priorities. That is fine, but it is also not about software freedom anymore too.
None of that even moves the needle on how high value the ideas are for me.
What we are basically talking about here is solidarity on software freedom.
Acting in solidarity means priorities. This is why I am focused on ideas. Liking people is not as high of a priority as the software freedom is.
To put it bluntly: even my enemies, "those other people" benefit from greater software freedoms.
Having a strong anchor matters. Stallman is not going to dilute things down or be co-opted. Great.
Given the last decade, I definitely value those things highly.
You appear to have other priorities. That is fine, but it is also not about software freedom anymore too.
I'll be honest, I'm a bit annoyed you think I care less about software freedom, because I don't like Stallman.
I'd like to separate two things out. I believe it severely hurts the cause of software freedom to have Stallman at the helm. I think software freedom is bigger than any one person, and Stallman has been, for many years, damaging to the cause.
Do you think "the ideas or Stallman" are more important?
I'd like to separate two things out. I believe it severely hurts the cause of software freedom to have Stallman at the helm. I think software freedom is bigger than any one person, and Stallman has been, for many years, damaging to the cause.
Do you think "the ideas or Stallman" are more important?
It was not my intent to annoy you.
It is my intent to understand.
Edit: and let us be clear we are just two good people having a tough discussion. I just want to understand you and your position better.
I agree software freedom is more than a given person.
So far, I have not really seen the ideas put into question here, right?
One of the originators of those ideas is in question.
And that person has done things others don't like, right? (I think so)
From what I can tell, those things are not about the ideas.
In my original comment, I had expressed my sincere desire for there to be focus among the people involved to keep it all about the ideas.
Not doing that does hurt the cause, because people may find themselves unwilling or unable to be a part of things.
You are expressing that, yes?
Either that focus happens, or it does not, and we shall see.
Re: gcc
Stallman would say, fork it and do one better.
He is not wrong about that, FWIW.
That's the freedom part in play. Does not mean we get what we want. It does mean we can do what we want.
It is my intent to understand.
Edit: and let us be clear we are just two good people having a tough discussion. I just want to understand you and your position better.
I agree software freedom is more than a given person.
So far, I have not really seen the ideas put into question here, right?
One of the originators of those ideas is in question.
And that person has done things others don't like, right? (I think so)
From what I can tell, those things are not about the ideas.
In my original comment, I had expressed my sincere desire for there to be focus among the people involved to keep it all about the ideas.
Not doing that does hurt the cause, because people may find themselves unwilling or unable to be a part of things.
You are expressing that, yes?
Either that focus happens, or it does not, and we shall see.
Re: gcc
Stallman would say, fork it and do one better.
He is not wrong about that, FWIW.
That's the freedom part in play. Does not mean we get what we want. It does mean we can do what we want.
You can wish for people to remain focused on the ideas, but it is my strong belief that will not happen. People, in general, do not associate with people they dislike (for person or moral reasons).
Even if I was willing to work with Stallman, I believe many, many people will not.
If Stallman wished for this to be "just about the ideas", he could have never told jokes about "deflowering female virgins" because they have not used Emacs. I assume he told these kinds of jokes because he hoped it would make him, or the FSF, more popular. He was (in my opinion) wrong.
Even if I was willing to work with Stallman, I believe many, many people will not.
If Stallman wished for this to be "just about the ideas", he could have never told jokes about "deflowering female virgins" because they have not used Emacs. I assume he told these kinds of jokes because he hoped it would make him, or the FSF, more popular. He was (in my opinion) wrong.
Then the ideas will die, and we will relearn these lessons again in the future, hopefully.
And they will die because it's just not a priority otherwise. Our opponents know that and absolutely will exploit it.
Solidarity on things is hard. It does require dealing with people we do not like, and it often also requires we accept our enemies, and "those other people" benefit same as we do.
I entertained this chat to see whether similar dynamics are in play on this matter, and they are. I have experience in this from labor politics.
Know when they win? They win with high degrees of solidarity rooted in mutual benefit. They always lose when personal judgement is a higher priority than the mutual benefit is.
Put simply, even the assholes need to pay rent, feed the kids, spend time with family, see the doctor, etc.
If it is more about who is the bigger asshole than it is the ideas, we will be left with a solid understanding of who the bigger asshole is, not a more robust, solid state of software freedom.
Now, that said, don't go blaming Stallman for your own choices. I won't blame him for mine.
He said very undesirable things. Lots of people do that, and it would be better if they didn't.
As painful as all that is, the hard truth of it has nothing to do with software freedom.
I think he can be a ripe ass, frankly. Maybe better choices are in his future. I hope so.
And they will die because it's just not a priority otherwise. Our opponents know that and absolutely will exploit it.
Solidarity on things is hard. It does require dealing with people we do not like, and it often also requires we accept our enemies, and "those other people" benefit same as we do.
I entertained this chat to see whether similar dynamics are in play on this matter, and they are. I have experience in this from labor politics.
Know when they win? They win with high degrees of solidarity rooted in mutual benefit. They always lose when personal judgement is a higher priority than the mutual benefit is.
Put simply, even the assholes need to pay rent, feed the kids, spend time with family, see the doctor, etc.
If it is more about who is the bigger asshole than it is the ideas, we will be left with a solid understanding of who the bigger asshole is, not a more robust, solid state of software freedom.
Now, that said, don't go blaming Stallman for your own choices. I won't blame him for mine.
He said very undesirable things. Lots of people do that, and it would be better if they didn't.
As painful as all that is, the hard truth of it has nothing to do with software freedom.
I think he can be a ripe ass, frankly. Maybe better choices are in his future. I hope so.
Thanks, by the way. You are a pretty great discussion partner. Frank open and honest. I appreciate that.
The "hot ladies" sticker on his door was not his work, someone put it there and took a picture. A staged coup:
http://techrights.org/2020/09/10/the-fake-door-sign/
http://techrights.org/2020/09/10/the-fake-door-sign/
I am on a quest for facts, hard in this debate.
So this was the original post that lead to RMS resign.
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
Here is a defending one.
https://whoisylvia.medium.com/richard-stallman-has-been-vili...
But there I have a question. Regarding the "Knight for justice (and hot ladies)" sign.
"not the sign about welcoming “hot ladies” on his MIT Media lab office door, which someone else wrote as a joke and which he removed but not before someone took a photo of it"
Was the sign a one-time joke, someone knowingly did, RMS left amused there for a while, days, weeks, months?
Or was he annoyed and removed it once he got to it?
Or was it part of a smear campaign? Even just happened recently at the time of the attacks, or way before?
Quite different scenarios. I suspect the first one to be true. But I am open to more solid facts, for example by someone, who actually was or is at the MIT.
So this was the original post that lead to RMS resign.
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
Here is a defending one.
https://whoisylvia.medium.com/richard-stallman-has-been-vili...
But there I have a question. Regarding the "Knight for justice (and hot ladies)" sign.
"not the sign about welcoming “hot ladies” on his MIT Media lab office door, which someone else wrote as a joke and which he removed but not before someone took a photo of it"
Was the sign a one-time joke, someone knowingly did, RMS left amused there for a while, days, weeks, months?
Or was he annoyed and removed it once he got to it?
Or was it part of a smear campaign? Even just happened recently at the time of the attacks, or way before?
Quite different scenarios. I suspect the first one to be true. But I am open to more solid facts, for example by someone, who actually was or is at the MIT.
Here's a better source than both of those: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
In your quest for truth, do you question yourself: what's the harm of the sign? Is it sexual assault? Harassing? A bad joke?
And what should we do about it? Ask him to take it out? Refuse to have him at conferences and universities? Kick him from MIT and the FSF?
We're too quick with our judgment and punishment nowadays. This level of offense used to be normal from the Christian prudes and the scared moms, not the progressive liberals.
And what should we do about it? Ask him to take it out? Refuse to have him at conferences and universities? Kick him from MIT and the FSF?
We're too quick with our judgment and punishment nowadays. This level of offense used to be normal from the Christian prudes and the scared moms, not the progressive liberals.
"In your quest for truth, do you question yourself: what's the harm of the sign?"
To me it would be not such a big deal, but to a pretty, but insecure hacker women - probably yes. As she would then avoid RMS and the FSF. If the FSF is fine with that, fine for them. I am also not joining.
But to me a big deal is, how people are dealing with facts.
Because saying, someone else wrote it and put it up and RMS put it down implies he did not endorse it. People here told me it is fake.
But if he would have left it there for good and only put it down much later after people told him that it is not appropriate... then saying the sign is fake would be lying propaganda to be.
And if someone would have put it there with the purpose of discediting RMS - would tell about about its enemies.
Thats why I want facts. So far I gathered quite some facts about quite some people involved.
But like I said, for all I care, RMS can be total or partial leader of the FSF again. They are not really my crowd anyway, despite myself living and loving open source.
To me it would be not such a big deal, but to a pretty, but insecure hacker women - probably yes. As she would then avoid RMS and the FSF. If the FSF is fine with that, fine for them. I am also not joining.
But to me a big deal is, how people are dealing with facts.
Because saying, someone else wrote it and put it up and RMS put it down implies he did not endorse it. People here told me it is fake.
But if he would have left it there for good and only put it down much later after people told him that it is not appropriate... then saying the sign is fake would be lying propaganda to be.
And if someone would have put it there with the purpose of discediting RMS - would tell about about its enemies.
Thats why I want facts. So far I gathered quite some facts about quite some people involved.
But like I said, for all I care, RMS can be total or partial leader of the FSF again. They are not really my crowd anyway, despite myself living and loving open source.
The same people that celebrate women creating OnlyFans accounts and flaunting their sexuality online are pretending to be offended over this.
R-M-S R-M-S R-M-S R-M-S R-M-S R-M-S R-M-S
It's great that he's back, but he shouldn't have been gone in the first place. Mob justice ("cancelling") shouldn't be a thing. It's time we had a serious discussion about what we can do to stop this. Step 0 should be finding the courage to stick up for people like RMS in the first place.
Subsequent steps? I'm not sure. We need to collectively get the feeling that it's gone way too far and the costs of sticking up for people like RMS are i) smaller than they seem, and ii) worth it.
It's great that he's back, but he shouldn't have been gone in the first place. Mob justice ("cancelling") shouldn't be a thing. It's time we had a serious discussion about what we can do to stop this. Step 0 should be finding the courage to stick up for people like RMS in the first place.
Subsequent steps? I'm not sure. We need to collectively get the feeling that it's gone way too far and the costs of sticking up for people like RMS are i) smaller than they seem, and ii) worth it.
Ok, he is more than a Saint of the Church of Emacs. See the signs: He delivered the Holy GNU OS, He was cancelled, and now He came back from being cancelled. Witness that He is the true messenger of GNU and the Messiah of the Free Software movement.
Good. Congratulations to Richard and all the members of the FSF. Hopefully, he can help them fix the damage they did while he was gone.
holy fucking HYPE. I'm glad I emailed advocating for him. He actually got back to me because the pansies running FSF's emails had no good answers to any of my questions.
Wow, people actually think that being somewhat neuro-diverse is reason enough or even an excuse for RMS behavior?
I haven't been a fan of the FSF in years (especially after meeting a few of their employees in Germany) but bringing RMS back is the definitive nail in the coffin of that organisation. I wouldn't be surprised if the few reasonable people still working for FSF leave and the org shuts down in a few years because they can't attract talent anymore and their donations dry up.
I haven't been a fan of the FSF in years (especially after meeting a few of their employees in Germany) but bringing RMS back is the definitive nail in the coffin of that organisation. I wouldn't be surprised if the few reasonable people still working for FSF leave and the org shuts down in a few years because they can't attract talent anymore and their donations dry up.
I think we can look to someone for their philosophy on software without them having to pass a wokeness purity test. I also respect and understand these issues are a quasi-religion to many and that they feel differently.
RMS: "I'm not planning to resign a second time!"
It's unfortunate and frustrating that enough of a name brand around you, and you become basically immune to repercussions for your actions. This isn't a good day for the FOSS community.
Basically, "we've waited long enough for people to forget, we're bringing him back and we have no issue with his behavior which we hope will continue the same as before."
RMS doesn't need to be on the board to have an impact - he's already well known (for better or worse) and can support the FSF as an individual.
Apparently no one learned anything from the experience, and history will repeat itself. FSF has shown its true colors - a cult of personality around RMS.
RMS doesn't need to be on the board to have an impact - he's already well known (for better or worse) and can support the FSF as an individual.
Apparently no one learned anything from the experience, and history will repeat itself. FSF has shown its true colors - a cult of personality around RMS.
This is a controversial opinion, but I believe someone who turns any space he's in into an unsafe place for women should not be leading the FSF. No matter who or their accomplishments. I never saw him being kicked out as unfounded, there were years and years of people being solicited sexually even after explicit non-consent by this man. He just seems to be unwilling to be professional towards women.
Can you explain how he is a threat to women's safety?
Wait what? I haven't heard these allegations and a quick check of Wikipedia didn't surface anything either.
Citation?
Citation?
Here’s a summary: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
[deleted]
The autism debate is very interesting, but I can fall to mention that I'm glad to see him so happy again.
I don't really have much opinion here but I will say that there are some very tired arguments about usually nameless "woke" people going around this thread, which should really be substantiated by material evidence rather than singing to the choir.
I feel like a lot of the cancel culture whining coming from people on the right is silly, things like Dr. Seuss and what have you, but there are instances that aren't helpful or require more justification, like rms here or Alexi McCammond.
Furthermore, It's kind of funny seeing some folks defend rms who wouldn't defend him on anything else, particularly on some of his activist stances.
Furthermore, It's kind of funny seeing some folks defend rms who wouldn't defend him on anything else, particularly on some of his activist stances.
Sometimes I worry that we truly are devolving and things are getting worse. I think “eventually people will wise up and focus on what’s important” but then even crazier stuff keeps happening.
This is a positive sign that maybe we can figure out how to eventually get it right and it won’t just be a circular firing squad getting smaller and smaller over time.
This is a positive sign that maybe we can figure out how to eventually get it right and it won’t just be a circular firing squad getting smaller and smaller over time.
It’s just because he’s a big target. You’d never see this kind of outage over the Oberon or Erlang Committee Chair.
That’s how it goes these days. Attack people you don’t like in power by proclaiming your moral system to be objectively true, regardless of its actual veracity.
Sooner or later, we’ll all realize that there is no truly objective morality and that we all must argue on a level playing field.
That’s how it goes these days. Attack people you don’t like in power by proclaiming your moral system to be objectively true, regardless of its actual veracity.
Sooner or later, we’ll all realize that there is no truly objective morality and that we all must argue on a level playing field.
I just want to chime in to say, either defend Stallman or don’t. Don’t do this silly moral panic “I worry about society” thing. Address the issues, don’t make gross generalisations.
"Only discuss the topic I wish you to discuss" is definitely an interesting take.
Avoiding generic tangents isn't just an interesting take, it's actualy a site guideline.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
Agree. Now save that reply for the next time the democrats/republicans/sjw/faang employees/the media say the world is going to be over every time a group of people do something kinda shitty.
When I can call you sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist and a nazi before breakfast addressing the issues misses the point of why the issues are being raised.
Pretending that these people have any morals past gathering power is as stupid as pretending that the mob burning down your restaurant is your fault for not installing enough sprinklers to put out napalm.
Pretending that these people have any morals past gathering power is as stupid as pretending that the mob burning down your restaurant is your fault for not installing enough sprinklers to put out napalm.
He can continue broadcasting being an asshole with shitty views, but if he also serves on a board of directors (exec director or not) that board and the organizations it represents and partners with are now all broadcasting a distilled, more virulent form of that message. Its not cancel culture its just his fucking time.
[deleted]
Richard. We are really with you until the end.
Regardless of the lies behind to destroy the free software movement.
He's not coming back, he's already on the board and never left the voting board.
This is wonderful news. The hero has returned from the cancellation underworld.
The first uncancellation?
[deleted]
maybe one should consider whether someone should be a board member based on his/her performance as a board member? Not what someone else assumes he/she might believe, based on a misquoted 2nd hand story about someone else's alleged bad behavior. Oh, no, here's "evidence" that he/she might be guilty of wrong-think! Or not defending strongly enough the right-think! TRAITOR!!!
Good.
Speaking for underaged victims everywhere.
Stallman can burn in Hell.
[deleted]
return of jedi
Both MIT and Harvard have admitted to helping Jeffrey Epstein avoid prosecution on federal racketeering charges for the sex-trafficking of minors after they were exposed by whistle-blowers.
Not sure why it would be appropriate then to exclude Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while allowing Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2020/01/12/after-epstei...
Nor would it be any more appropriate to allow Mr. Seth Lloyd back onto the MIT campus:
https://thetech.com/2021/02/25/mit-administration-epstein-op...
What are the allegations against Stallman regarding the aiding and abetting of sex-trafficking and/or child rape?
Not sure why it would be appropriate then to exclude Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while allowing Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2020/01/12/after-epstei...
Nor would it be any more appropriate to allow Mr. Seth Lloyd back onto the MIT campus:
https://thetech.com/2021/02/25/mit-administration-epstein-op...
What are the allegations against Stallman regarding the aiding and abetting of sex-trafficking and/or child rape?
The attacks on him were dubious at best.
Unrelated to the topic, but could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=community%20identity%20by:dang...
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=community%20identity%20by:dang...
Technically, such guideline prohibits anonymous speech, because how you speak can reveal your identity after a certain threshold...
These are all questions of degree and how to balance trade-offs, so while you've raised one legitimate concern (among the many), I don't think an absolute statement like "prohibits anonymous speech" is accurate.
[deleted]
Are they.... here is a direct quote from him on a pro-pedophilia political party in 2006 that many that people took offence with:
“I am sceptical 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.”
https://thenextweb.com/dd/2019/09/13/free-software-icon-rich...
“I am sceptical 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.”
https://thenextweb.com/dd/2019/09/13/free-software-icon-rich...
When taken out of context it looks bad, but when it's part of a broader discussion about morality and law not always matching up, it makes sense. Age of consent laws vary around the world, and it doesn't make sense why someone could legally have consensual sex with someone in one country, but if they had sex in a place with different age of consent laws, they'd be branded a pedophile.
It wasn't part of a broader discussion.[1] And he wasn't talking about adolescents.[2]
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
[2] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
[2] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...
This is an example where the quote is actually worse with the broader context.
I think this view of Stallman was quite widespread in the 70s, or at the very least much more widespread than it is today.
I read in The Netherlands in the 70s child porn was quite readily available. See also “Chick arrest”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_th...
In this period there were even politicians openly advocating for allowing sex with children on television: https://youtu.be/nSMpAhQRDB8 (Dutch spoken)
It seems to me often the people advocating for allowing sex with children would be left-oriented.
https://timeline.com/children-of-god-5245a45f6a2a
However I believe most decent human beings these days realize sex with children can be very harmful to children.
Perhaps this is a background Stallman grew up in.
I read in The Netherlands in the 70s child porn was quite readily available. See also “Chick arrest”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_th...
In this period there were even politicians openly advocating for allowing sex with children on television: https://youtu.be/nSMpAhQRDB8 (Dutch spoken)
It seems to me often the people advocating for allowing sex with children would be left-oriented.
https://timeline.com/children-of-god-5245a45f6a2a
However I believe most decent human beings these days realize sex with children can be very harmful to children.
Perhaps this is a background Stallman grew up in.
> It seems to me often the people advocating for allowing sex with children would be left-oriented.
And teenagers. My kid's progressive K-12 private school had a scandal recently when more than a dozen victims came forth with allegations that they had been sexually abused by male teachers in the 1970s. Much of the testimony recounts that sexual relationships between male teachers and high school students were an "open secret" around the school, teachers would invite students to parties at their houses, etc.
It was a very liberal school back then too--the fact that it did not generate a scandal at the time despite being an "open secret" tells you about how the boundaries were being pushed in various directions back then. Luckily that turned out to be an ideological dead end.
And teenagers. My kid's progressive K-12 private school had a scandal recently when more than a dozen victims came forth with allegations that they had been sexually abused by male teachers in the 1970s. Much of the testimony recounts that sexual relationships between male teachers and high school students were an "open secret" around the school, teachers would invite students to parties at their houses, etc.
It was a very liberal school back then too--the fact that it did not generate a scandal at the time despite being an "open secret" tells you about how the boundaries were being pushed in various directions back then. Luckily that turned out to be an ideological dead end.
But after someone read it they spoke to him about it and he realized he was wrong and published a correction right along side it and that was many years ago. You should have mentioned that. If he hadn't said it publicly, and only said it in private to people, that wouldn't have happened. Is that better? I don't think so. Free speech creates counter speech and changes people's minds.
He didn't retract anything until just before he resigned as far as I know.[1] The retraction wasn't right along side his earlier comments.[2][3] 6 years isn't many at his age. And he fixed a link without changing anything else just 1 year before.
Defend him if you want. But let's be accurate.
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
[2] https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
[3] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
Defend him if you want. But let's be accurate.
[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
[2] https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
[3] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
Someone far above posted an archive.org link from, was it 2006?, that allegedly showed him already having changed his mind on something by then. AFAICR from the discussion it was either exactly what you're talking about or something very similar.
(Sorry, you're on your own looking for it -- it was on the first page at the time I saw it.)
(Sorry, you're on your own looking for it -- it was on the first page at the time I saw it.)
Was he being an actual child-predator, was he sharing child porn?
Suppose some guy (Stallman or not) argues that the age of consent should be lowered to 14. Now you are in your right to oppose to that proposal or even be disgusted by it. What you dont have the right to is to silence and ostracize the guy or even suggest that opinion must have any type of consequence , be it legal or moral.
Suppose some guy (Stallman or not) argues that the age of consent should be lowered to 14. Now you are in your right to oppose to that proposal or even be disgusted by it. What you dont have the right to is to silence and ostracize the guy or even suggest that opinion must have any type of consequence , be it legal or moral.
ramraj07(3)
Odd that none of the teens Epstein slept with would be illegal to sleep with in Germany. Pedophilia is starting to mean 'sex I find icky' in the US.
German Law is a bit more complicated than people give it credit for. While the police might not proactively go after cases involving some older minors, they will if the person files a complaint.
If a situation involves "exploitation" under the law, as most of Epstein's crimes would be considered to, then it is also automatically illegal.
If a situation involves "exploitation" under the law, as most of Epstein's crimes would be considered to, then it is also automatically illegal.
Yes, rape is a bad thing that gets reported in other countries too.
[deleted]
Sounds like he is trying to follow the science. Aren’t we all about that nowadays? His statement is perfectly reasonable.
Also, it’s extremely dishonest of you, and frankly a little contemptible, to keep smearing a man by taking this out of context and failing to also mention where he learned more about the issue and changed his views. This serves no other purpose than character assassination.
Also, it’s extremely dishonest of you, and frankly a little contemptible, to keep smearing a man by taking this out of context and failing to also mention where he learned more about the issue and changed his views. This serves no other purpose than character assassination.
This is not something I would say, or something I would ever recommend someone say, but it is 100% the type of open questioning an autism-spectrum person would ask when they don't understand the emotional weight or implications behind asking such a question.
I think professional conduct has been confused with other things. There is some basic standard of professional conduct that should be adopted in a professional environment. The lack of such a professional conduct is detrimental to the organization and all people who work for it.
This professional conduct is not political correctness, it is not any specific political stance, it is basic things like don't make sexualized remarks, don't make sexual advances, don't ask for personal favours.
If someone can't adhere to these basic standards it is not clear to me why everyone else in a professional environment should be disadvantaged on their part.
This professional conduct is not political correctness, it is not any specific political stance, it is basic things like don't make sexualized remarks, don't make sexual advances, don't ask for personal favours.
If someone can't adhere to these basic standards it is not clear to me why everyone else in a professional environment should be disadvantaged on their part.
Both MIT and Harvard have admitted to helping Jeffrey Epstein avoid prosecution on federal racketeering charges for the sex-trafficking of minors after they were exposed by whistle-blowers.
Not sure why it would be appropriate then to exclude Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while allowing Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2020/01/12/after-epstei...
Nor would it be any more appropriate to allow Mr. Seth Lloyd back onto the MIT campus either:
https://thetech.com/2021/02/25/mit-administration-epstein-op...
What are the allegations against Stallman regarding the aiding and abetting of sex-trafficking and/or child rape?
Not sure why it would be appropriate then to exclude Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while allowing Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2020/01/12/after-epstei...
Nor would it be any more appropriate to allow Mr. Seth Lloyd back onto the MIT campus either:
https://thetech.com/2021/02/25/mit-administration-epstein-op...
What are the allegations against Stallman regarding the aiding and abetting of sex-trafficking and/or child rape?
angry_octet(1)
Finally!
When the Garrets of the World are defeated by facts, it's always a good day.
When the Garrets of the World are defeated by facts, it's always a good day.
dang, where is your pearl-clutching at all the casual ableism in this thread? Commenters are literally calling for the exclusion of people with autism from society. Can you take time out of your busy schedule banning anyone with diverging political views to take a look at the real problems in this thread?
yc-kraln(2)
mvzvm(1)
threepio(1)
Did he have to issue a self flagellating tear eyed apology and ask for maximum sentence in front of the People's Tribunal?
Sounds like he did not, is the tide starting to turn? Will we stop shaming and cancelling people over a shirt they wear? (was my personal turning point)
Sounds like he did not, is the tide starting to turn? Will we stop shaming and cancelling people over a shirt they wear? (was my personal turning point)
[deleted]
Here is the 10 page lists of Stallman's 'demands' for people hosting him [1].
This is considerably longer and more detailed than any heretofore described pop singer 'diva' or CEO. I can't think of anyone but heads of state with such requirements.
Stop defending Stallman's 'neurodivergence' as some kind of excuse for his behaviour - this is straight up egocentric narcissism.
[1] https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/g/mysociety-commun...
This is considerably longer and more detailed than any heretofore described pop singer 'diva' or CEO. I can't think of anyone but heads of state with such requirements.
Stop defending Stallman's 'neurodivergence' as some kind of excuse for his behaviour - this is straight up egocentric narcissism.
[1] https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/g/mysociety-commun...
Stallman routinely goes to foreign countries and stays with people who he does not know. It is much more sensible just to write everything down and save time.
CEOs and pop singers stay at hotels, where there is a pretty well defined culture of what is to be expected. It is a much stabler environment than some random free-software style hippie's house. Heaven help the hotel that routinely has cat hair in the rooms, it will not get CEOs and pop stars staying there. And I expect Heads of State travel with chefs and butlers to sort these details out in person from a similarly detailed list. Or stay at a hotel.
I like cats if they are friendly, but they are not good for me; I am
somewhat allergic to them. This allergy makes my face itch and my
eyes water. So the bed, and the room I will usually be staying in,
need to be clean of cat hair. However, it is no problem if there is a
cat elsewhere in the house--I might even enjoy it if the cat is
friendly.
CEOs and pop singers stay at hotels, where there is a pretty well defined culture of what is to be expected. It is a much stabler environment than some random free-software style hippie's house. Heaven help the hotel that routinely has cat hair in the rooms, it will not get CEOs and pop stars staying there. And I expect Heads of State travel with chefs and butlers to sort these details out in person from a similarly detailed list. Or stay at a hotel.
I wish FSF also started caring about the developers. Free software was and is a great idea, but unintended consequence is that it also facilitates exploitation of software developers by big corporations who from the perspective of FSF are just users as regular people. This means they make billions off of a software who someone built in their rented flat, living a modest life, sometimes struggling with bills, meanwhile the execs spend their time choosing a new jet and on which Caribbean island this time will be a general meeting of the board.
FSF should start lobbying for royalty system for developers, so that big corporations using free software should have to pay % of revenue to all contributors of open source software they are using. Individuals and small companies would be exempt.
The goal of the FSF is "to promote computer user freedom". By "freedom" they mean the four freedoms of the Free Software definition:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Your proposal contradicts freedom 0, so the FSF cannot support it without abandoning their mission. To do so is both undesirable and unnecessary, because the alleged "exploitation of software developers" is in most cases just people doing what those developers permitted when they chose to use a permissive license. The correct solution is encouraging developers to choose more suitable Free Software licenses, and the FSF already does this by advocating copyleft licenses in most circumstances. The AGPL especially has strong protections for the four freedoms, which makes it very difficult to "exploit" developers who use it.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Your proposal contradicts freedom 0, so the FSF cannot support it without abandoning their mission. To do so is both undesirable and unnecessary, because the alleged "exploitation of software developers" is in most cases just people doing what those developers permitted when they chose to use a permissive license. The correct solution is encouraging developers to choose more suitable Free Software licenses, and the FSF already does this by advocating copyleft licenses in most circumstances. The AGPL especially has strong protections for the four freedoms, which makes it very difficult to "exploit" developers who use it.
Big corporations sponsor FSF then this is an understandable stance as what I am proposing would hurt their bottom line. Current situation saves them huge amounts of money from spending on R&D because developers all over the world will develop something for free (believing the PR around open source) and then if something catches on, big corporation can use it of appropriate it if you will. Sometimes developers from within those companies feel bad and then ask the corporation if they could contribute something. This is then again is turned into PR piece saying that you see we give back! Best outcome for the original authors is getting hired on mediocre salary at one of those corporations or having a cool entry in CV.
I think you are missing the point and my idea does not contradict user freedom as users will continue to use it for free.
The philosophy of freedom of open source that RMS and others have been developing pre-dates any significant big corporation sponsorship. (Many of the particular big corporations using open source now didn't even exist then).
I guess you can argue they would have changed it by now but for the subsequent sponsorship. There's no real way to resolve that claim one way or the other.
But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations.
Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source.
So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.
I guess you can argue they would have changed it by now but for the subsequent sponsorship. There's no real way to resolve that claim one way or the other.
But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations.
Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source.
So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.
> But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations.
I don't dispute the fact that it is coherent, but it is serving the interest of big corporations. Could you explain why do you think it doesn't?
> Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source.
Big corporations shouldn't be treated the same way as individual users, as this is facilitating exploitation. Maybe indeed in the beginnings of FSF this was not thought about, but when big corporations realised this is benefiting them in many ways they started sponsoring the movement to keep the status quo.
> So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.
This is a fallacy. This is the same problem as with unpaid internships - you could say if you can't do unpaid internship, you can find company that will pay for your time, but why would companies do that if they can get free labour? This creates disadvantage for people from unprivileged backgrounds as they cannot afford to gain experience through unpaid internship as they have bills to pay and families to feed. That's why in many countries unpaid internships are illegal.
I am not surprised that this idea gets pushed back here, as there is too many people here who wouldn't like coporations they work for to finally start paying.
I don't dispute the fact that it is coherent, but it is serving the interest of big corporations. Could you explain why do you think it doesn't?
> Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source.
Big corporations shouldn't be treated the same way as individual users, as this is facilitating exploitation. Maybe indeed in the beginnings of FSF this was not thought about, but when big corporations realised this is benefiting them in many ways they started sponsoring the movement to keep the status quo.
> So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.
This is a fallacy. This is the same problem as with unpaid internships - you could say if you can't do unpaid internship, you can find company that will pay for your time, but why would companies do that if they can get free labour? This creates disadvantage for people from unprivileged backgrounds as they cannot afford to gain experience through unpaid internship as they have bills to pay and families to feed. That's why in many countries unpaid internships are illegal.
I am not surprised that this idea gets pushed back here, as there is too many people here who wouldn't like coporations they work for to finally start paying.
I don't know how useful it is to continue this I don't think we're going to get anywhere else, but I wanted to defend myself against your accusation and say that I do not work for a "big corporation", I work for a small non-profit, intentionally (and making less money than I probably could if I were trying to maximize my income, but enough money, and I get to write open source on the clock).
Fair enough. I think I am onto something but I am unable to argue it well yet. It's good to see other perspectives.
> Your proposal contradicts freedom 0
Not true. The AGPL solves the problem elegantly. IMHO, the FSF compromised its principles by not closing the “running a binary for someone doesn’t count as distributing the software to them” loophole.
Their compromised ethical stance is what has led them to irrelevance.
As it is, GPL is functionally equivalent to BSD licensing for most of the industry (and essentially all of cloud computing).
Not true. The AGPL solves the problem elegantly. IMHO, the FSF compromised its principles by not closing the “running a binary for someone doesn’t count as distributing the software to them” loophole.
Their compromised ethical stance is what has led them to irrelevance.
As it is, GPL is functionally equivalent to BSD licensing for most of the industry (and essentially all of cloud computing).
A royalty system is almost in direct opposition to what the FSF has accomplished. In fact, the entire body of work that the FSF has done has been to ensure that users of software have the same rights as developers of that software. As far as execs with jets, starving developers, etc... well, the music industry and book industry have royalties and last I looked, the execs did better than most practicing musicians and authors.
You make the developers sound like helpless individuals unable to adopt a software licence that gives them what they want, and that need people to save them from ruin.
They obviously want everyone and anyone to use their software and don't care who makes money from it, if its licenced that way. They can licence it so it excludes large corporations, or even demand recompense under certain situations, such as company size.
Your attitude just sounds like you object to large corporations (and their executives) making money from free software. If it's not your software it's really none of your business.
They obviously want everyone and anyone to use their software and don't care who makes money from it, if its licenced that way. They can licence it so it excludes large corporations, or even demand recompense under certain situations, such as company size.
Your attitude just sounds like you object to large corporations (and their executives) making money from free software. If it's not your software it's really none of your business.
In many countries it is illegal to work for free - companies have to pay you minimum wage regardless if you agree to not be paid. In a way this open source model provides a loophole through which companies can exploit developers or it puts developers who would love to contribute to open source into disadvantage.
I think we need changes in law to ensure even if people want their work to be used for free to be reimbursed.
This way if you want to work on open source you won't have to worry how you are going to pay your bills.
I need to think how to argue this better and make politicians aware of this issue.
Take a look how big corporations were able to amass such wealth - they don't pay taxes like small businesses do and they don't pay salaries for R&D as much as they should, because there is always that open source project to appropriate, so why pay?
It's not at all clear to me that someone deriving benefit from freely given work constitutes exploitation.
The creator is free to create what they want, the user is free to support them, or not. What you are not free to do is appropriate the "creation" itself.
The creator is free to create what they want, the user is free to support them, or not. What you are not free to do is appropriate the "creation" itself.
>FSF should start lobbying for royalty system for developers, so that big corporations using free software should have to pay % of revenue to all contributors of open source software they are using.
Nobody's forcing them to license out their software for free. The reason why they do so is simple: they know they won't be able to make a buck off of it if it was commercial (even with the individuals/small company exemption you mentioned), and that stringent terms will only harm adoption of their project. See for instance companies unwilling to touch GPL licensed software, for instance.
From the corporation/executive's view, why would they bother adopting a piece of software that has a royalty system, especially when there are alternatives? For instance, other projects that are permissively licensed, writing it themselves, or paying for a proprietary/commercial version.
Nobody's forcing them to license out their software for free. The reason why they do so is simple: they know they won't be able to make a buck off of it if it was commercial (even with the individuals/small company exemption you mentioned), and that stringent terms will only harm adoption of their project. See for instance companies unwilling to touch GPL licensed software, for instance.
From the corporation/executive's view, why would they bother adopting a piece of software that has a royalty system, especially when there are alternatives? For instance, other projects that are permissively licensed, writing it themselves, or paying for a proprietary/commercial version.
> The reason why they do so is simple: they know they won't be able to make a buck off of it if it was commercial
That's not the reason why someone would choose a copyleft license of the kind the FSF advocates, like the GPL or one of its variants.
You choose a copyleft license because you primarily care about freedom.
That's not the reason why someone would choose a copyleft license of the kind the FSF advocates, like the GPL or one of its variants.
You choose a copyleft license because you primarily care about freedom.
Different political conceptual views, I guess? You may be looking to some kind of workers cooperative, where the workers are the developers. A cooperative's primary benefit is to the members of the organisation. A coop can have viewpoints outside of course.
The FSF views all global people are the "worker" - so rights and freedoms are for people outside the organisation.
So you'd like a workers coop but with a (variable) lesser set of rights that the FSF currently has to everyone else?
I could imagine a closed license that #1 only members of the coop can develop software with that license and #2 only the coop can sell the software. You could optionally allow non members to develop with copy left-like term but not sell their work or the software.
How would you do it?
The FSF views all global people are the "worker" - so rights and freedoms are for people outside the organisation.
So you'd like a workers coop but with a (variable) lesser set of rights that the FSF currently has to everyone else?
I could imagine a closed license that #1 only members of the coop can develop software with that license and #2 only the coop can sell the software. You could optionally allow non members to develop with copy left-like term but not sell their work or the software.
How would you do it?
> unintended consequence is that it also facilitates exploitation of software developers by big corporations who from the perspective of FSF are just users as regular people.
Sure, but rms has nothing but pure comtempt for every big corporation and their approach to software. The only difference is the FSF doesn't have influence over big tech the way it does over hobbyists. This isn't a condemnation of the FSF, but of its marginal position. An alternative perspective is that the principles of the FSF are good, and should be enshrined in law and regulation, much like other freedoms are. We shouldn't make FOSS software less free, we should make big tech software more free.
Sure, but rms has nothing but pure comtempt for every big corporation and their approach to software. The only difference is the FSF doesn't have influence over big tech the way it does over hobbyists. This isn't a condemnation of the FSF, but of its marginal position. An alternative perspective is that the principles of the FSF are good, and should be enshrined in law and regulation, much like other freedoms are. We shouldn't make FOSS software less free, we should make big tech software more free.
Exactly this. Free software has helped shift the economic power from programming experts to business people. Who cares if you are a top-class compiler expert. Compilers are a commodity anyway. You are better off if you are young, and photogenic and can start a social media app that monetizes people privacy.
In addition, things have shifted to cloud, which favors bin corporations even more, and data and code is not even accessible, even theoretically, for the user.
Of course big business is a fan of free software, it enables them to get for basically free, a lot of infrastructure code.
Lawyers and Doctors must absolutely hold programmers in derision for undermining their own economic power.
In addition, things have shifted to cloud, which favors bin corporations even more, and data and code is not even accessible, even theoretically, for the user.
Of course big business is a fan of free software, it enables them to get for basically free, a lot of infrastructure code.
Lawyers and Doctors must absolutely hold programmers in derision for undermining their own economic power.
Exactly this.
I love and support open source[1], but I don’t support all software being “free of cost”.
[1] Not the OSI definition of it.
I love and support open source[1], but I don’t support all software being “free of cost”.
[1] Not the OSI definition of it.
Do people actually support all software being free?
Note that I said above:
> but I don’t support all software being “free of cost”
Does anyone really support all software being free?
That means developers would have to live like saints / monks, with donations to support themselves (and forgo the the 250k income that's become the standard/median in Silicon Valley today...).
Note that I said above:
> but I don’t support all software being “free of cost”
Does anyone really support all software being free?
That means developers would have to live like saints / monks, with donations to support themselves (and forgo the the 250k income that's become the standard/median in Silicon Valley today...).
Well, there are other ways to get income while producing software than selling the software. You can be a university professor. You can be funded by grants. You can have a job working for a non-software company that lets you produce free software for that company's use that you can also give away, while they keep paying your salary. Things like that were how open source software has been historically produced mostly, right? Heck, there could be a Universal Basic Income, and someone could choose to write the software they want while getting it.
Yeah, none of these would be sufficient to produce all the software that is "needed" or wanted. So, as long as there are people willing to pay for software they can't get for free, all software won't be free.
I support the idea of all software being free, including social changes that would be necessary for that to be realistic, such as serious alterations to capitalism.
Yeah, none of these would be sufficient to produce all the software that is "needed" or wanted. So, as long as there are people willing to pay for software they can't get for free, all software won't be free.
I support the idea of all software being free, including social changes that would be necessary for that to be realistic, such as serious alterations to capitalism.
> You can be a university professor. You can be funded by grants.
I actually have a bunch of friends that I went to college with, who all have PhDs now. Getting a tenure track position is nearly impossible. Also, grants are extremely hard to get. They’re all working either: (1) as postdocs (where there is a grant funding it), or worse (2) looking for a postdoctoral or tenure-track position (or have lost a postdoc position because the grant ran out). These things are incredibly hard to do.
> You can have a job working for a non-software company that lets you produce free software for that company's use that you can also give away, while they keep paying your salary.
If the plan is abolish proprietary software, there’s not gonna be a lot of companies making money selling software, ie making software. So do you mean some hardware company that needs to write some specific software for its needs?
I suppose there could be a world where most/all software is free (in GNU terms), but you’d end up with almost everything becoming web-based SaaS, and that would be the commercial model. (I mean, we’re already pretty close to that.)
Universal basic income requires a tax base of highly productive, and high earning taxpayers. Just look at the economic contribution of software and technology companies. If the government were to take a wrecking ball to that literal economic powerhouse, how significantly would the tax base shrink by?
I actually have a bunch of friends that I went to college with, who all have PhDs now. Getting a tenure track position is nearly impossible. Also, grants are extremely hard to get. They’re all working either: (1) as postdocs (where there is a grant funding it), or worse (2) looking for a postdoctoral or tenure-track position (or have lost a postdoc position because the grant ran out). These things are incredibly hard to do.
> You can have a job working for a non-software company that lets you produce free software for that company's use that you can also give away, while they keep paying your salary.
If the plan is abolish proprietary software, there’s not gonna be a lot of companies making money selling software, ie making software. So do you mean some hardware company that needs to write some specific software for its needs?
I suppose there could be a world where most/all software is free (in GNU terms), but you’d end up with almost everything becoming web-based SaaS, and that would be the commercial model. (I mean, we’re already pretty close to that.)
Universal basic income requires a tax base of highly productive, and high earning taxpayers. Just look at the economic contribution of software and technology companies. If the government were to take a wrecking ball to that literal economic powerhouse, how significantly would the tax base shrink by?
> I don’t support all software being “free of cost”.
Stallman and the FSF agree with you; selling software is perfectly OK:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling
Stallman and the FSF agree with you; selling software is perfectly OK:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling
From your link:
> With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software.
The type of “selling” that GNU is proposing here is exactly the same as asking for donations (and is a misuse of the word “sell”). Since people can resdistribute the software without limit (and someone is sure to put it up on internet), you “charging” for it is the same as asking for donations.
> With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software.
The type of “selling” that GNU is proposing here is exactly the same as asking for donations (and is a misuse of the word “sell”). Since people can resdistribute the software without limit (and someone is sure to put it up on internet), you “charging” for it is the same as asking for donations.
If you don’t like that kind of selling, maybe this is more to your liking? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535224&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535224&p=3
(Posts like this will go away once we turn off pagination.)