An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF(github.com)
github.com
An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF
https://github.com/rms-support-letter/rms-support-letter.github.io
119 comments
As little as I like to do this, I think it's important to bring up the "autism" topic, because I see way too many autistic programmers being thrown under the bus for stuff like this. To start, the three smartest programmers I personally know are autistic, and all of them struggle to make sound judgement calls at the drop of a hat. I've seen them lambasted in IRC channels for saying stupid things or slipping up a function name when writing documentation, but every one of them could out-code their harasser at a moments notice. I get the feeling we're in the same boat with RMS, since I've seen his behavior before in neurodivergent programmers: hard-headedness, dedication to a fault, and speaking his mind even when the social repercussions could blow up in his face. His Aspbergers is part of what makes him who he is, and I'd rather have a distastefully transparent board member than a muzzled figurehead. I value Stallman's voice, and I honestly feel bad that his slips are being sensationalized now.
I think getting physiology in this is just wrong. I don't know whether RMS is on the spectrum, and whether he would have been diagnosed as one if he passed some tests. I think it's beyond the point - even non-autistic people can make bad judgements, make mistakes, behave awkwardly, be stubborn and behave in socially awkward manner. Making it like "if we find a bad statement in your past, we're going to ruin your life, but if you have this magic paper then it's ok" - is not how you solve a problem or people's lives being ruined. RMS's voice is important not because he may or may not have certain condition, but because of what he's been saying and doing for years. It's not about autism, especially not about making it yet another "protected identity" checkbox.
I agree with a lot of the stuff being said here, but it's entirely tangential to what I talked about. Our "cancel culture" is more focused on zooming-in on the minutia than the big-picture. I love my autistic friends, and never once would I describe their behavior as mean-spirited or "jerk-like". I treat them with patient respect, and they reciprocate the sentiment. I personally know that 2 of those 3 friends love RMS (haven't asked the third :p), and I fail to see what harm he can cause by rejoining the board. Stallman envisioned a free world, where people can communicate openly and without censorship. When people try to silence him, they're only showing how little they understand his goals. You can love him, you can hate him, but you can never stop him. I personally disagree with many of his opinions, but I fully support him coming back to the FSF. Richard Stallman embodies freedom, so he belongs there, regardless of his political or personal opinions.
It's not a matter of his political or personal opinions, it's about behaviour. It's about whether the FSF wants to be welcoming to either people who behave like rms or women.
rms, if you by any chance read this: you're supposed to make the ladies laugh. If you talk to women (and talk only, leering is verboten), and make smile and laugh, sometimes a brassiere comes off and noone is unhappy afterwards.
rms, if you by any chance read this: you're supposed to make the ladies laugh. If you talk to women (and talk only, leering is verboten), and make smile and laugh, sometimes a brassiere comes off and noone is unhappy afterwards.
You should read the accounts of the few people that spoke up about working for or with the FSF despite their overreaching NDA. They have nothing good to say about Stallman as a leader. His reputation alone makes him ineffective as a person to rally behind for a lot of people, despite the fact they contribute to FOSS and share more of the ideals of the free software movement than the open source movement.
You can stop Stallman, and you should, lest his ideals and the FSF drop further into irrelevance.
You can stop Stallman, and you should, lest his ideals and the FSF drop further into irrelevance.
The article misses the point the grand parent is making:
People with autism lack (to varying degree) the ability to decode social clues and - based on that - behave in socially agreeable ways.
Since the other side (non-autists) can usually not distinguish between disregarding social norms on purpose (being a jerk) or by accident (autism), autists are often judged as jerks. Escpecially since the high frequency of "social fuckups" rules out "normal" human mistakes.
Since the other side (non-autists) can usually not distinguish between disregarding social norms on purpose (being a jerk) or by accident (autism), autists are often judged as jerks. Escpecially since the high frequency of "social fuckups" rules out "normal" human mistakes.
"If you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism." - Dr. Stephen Shore
https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1173981287037751297...
> I hosted rms many years ago in the 90’s, what was supposed to be hosting your hero for a ~3 day thing became a ~2 month nightmare. I joined a small club “never host rms ever again”. To cope with it, I used to collect the horror stories.
> He met a woman on the first evening in town, and extended his stay. One day, I came home from work and she had moved in.
I don't personally know any autistic person, but this doesn't sound like autism. How many autistic person visits a new town, goes into a bar, and brings back a woman to your friend's bedroom, without asking the friend first? This sounds more like a run-of-the-mill asshole.
> I hosted rms many years ago in the 90’s, what was supposed to be hosting your hero for a ~3 day thing became a ~2 month nightmare. I joined a small club “never host rms ever again”. To cope with it, I used to collect the horror stories.
> He met a woman on the first evening in town, and extended his stay. One day, I came home from work and she had moved in.
I don't personally know any autistic person, but this doesn't sound like autism. How many autistic person visits a new town, goes into a bar, and brings back a woman to your friend's bedroom, without asking the friend first? This sounds more like a run-of-the-mill asshole.
I'm sure Stallman has issues with social judgement, but that would just lead to awkward situations that resolve when the person notices they're out of line. Stallman will sit on his bad calls. I'd guess this is just what happens when your entire career is built on your stubbornness, and you get applauded for it instead of scolded.
I'm trying to fight my own bias here, but.. I really don't know what to think.
On one hand I'm totally against cancel culture for things like:
- How you voted(e.g. Trump/Biden)
- Your political views on any subject
On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
So, could I associate with someone like that?
Could I comfortably work with someone that(for example) calls for the killing of babies if they where jewish, black etc.
On one hand I'm totally against cancel culture for things like:
- How you voted(e.g. Trump/Biden)
- Your political views on any subject
On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
So, could I associate with someone like that?
Could I comfortably work with someone that(for example) calls for the killing of babies if they where jewish, black etc.
> Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
I've been in OSS for decades. I've actually argued with RMS personally on certain subject (he called me evil, which I disagree with, but that's not the point). I've read a lot of his writings and a lot of writings about him. I never heard about this until today. I have no idea what RMS actually said on the subject (you didn't provide a quote, as it usually happens) but whatever he said, it's clearly wasn't something very important among all his body of work, if mostly nobody heard or cared about this so far.
In fact, I can't bring myself to care about RMS's views on the subject right now - even if your most uncharitable interpretation is completely correct (I am 99% sure it's not, but even in unlikely case it is) it's completely immaterial. RMS has never been and never will be in a position that such an opinion would matter for anything, he has never killed any babies and has never contributed or influenced anything that mattered in this area. He did, however, contributed a lot and mattered a lot in other areas.
One of the most idiotic and toxic features of cancel culture is reducing the immense complexity of the person's life to one - almost always distorted and misinterpreted - statement and focusing on it as if it were the only point ever. There's no "someone like that". "Someone like that" is a bullshit - no one is "like that", and "like that" is an insanely awful criteria to guide your actions. Literally everybody has done something in their life some people may not like. One can disagree with somebody on some subject and still agree with them on other subjects. That's how human society works. People can not be reduced to a single "like that", and shouldn't be. Get out of Twitter and purge it out of your system, for the benefit of yourself and humanity.
I've been in OSS for decades. I've actually argued with RMS personally on certain subject (he called me evil, which I disagree with, but that's not the point). I've read a lot of his writings and a lot of writings about him. I never heard about this until today. I have no idea what RMS actually said on the subject (you didn't provide a quote, as it usually happens) but whatever he said, it's clearly wasn't something very important among all his body of work, if mostly nobody heard or cared about this so far.
In fact, I can't bring myself to care about RMS's views on the subject right now - even if your most uncharitable interpretation is completely correct (I am 99% sure it's not, but even in unlikely case it is) it's completely immaterial. RMS has never been and never will be in a position that such an opinion would matter for anything, he has never killed any babies and has never contributed or influenced anything that mattered in this area. He did, however, contributed a lot and mattered a lot in other areas.
One of the most idiotic and toxic features of cancel culture is reducing the immense complexity of the person's life to one - almost always distorted and misinterpreted - statement and focusing on it as if it were the only point ever. There's no "someone like that". "Someone like that" is a bullshit - no one is "like that", and "like that" is an insanely awful criteria to guide your actions. Literally everybody has done something in their life some people may not like. One can disagree with somebody on some subject and still agree with them on other subjects. That's how human society works. People can not be reduced to a single "like that", and shouldn't be. Get out of Twitter and purge it out of your system, for the benefit of yourself and humanity.
> One of the most idiotic and toxic features of cancel culture is reducing the immense complexity of the person's life to one - almost always distorted and misinterpreted - statement and focusing on it as if it were the only point ever.
I actually agree with this.
I never said "cancel him", I said it would be hard to support.
Although I strongly disagree with what he said, I can and should be able to work with people I strongly disagree with, otherwise society would collapse.
I have actually changed my mind :o
I actually agree with this.
I never said "cancel him", I said it would be hard to support.
Although I strongly disagree with what he said, I can and should be able to work with people I strongly disagree with, otherwise society would collapse.
I have actually changed my mind :o
Cancel Culture is a real problem. An unfair one.
I may disagree with what someone says but I will fight with them for their right to say it.
I'm transphobic because I will never under any circumstances be with a transgender man who will never be a woman.
There - Will I be canceled?
I may disagree with what someone says but I will fight with them for their right to say it.
I'm transphobic because I will never under any circumstances be with a transgender man who will never be a woman.
There - Will I be canceled?
This is a lot of words to defend someone when you -as you say - don't know what he said nor what he meant.
The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot.
The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot.
> This is a lot of words
That's your response? "too long, didn't read"? Well, good job, I guess, here's your participation trophy.
> The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot.
No, it actually says nothing at all. That's the whole point, which you may have understood if you bothered to actually read. RMS's views on random subjects is just idle thoughts of a random dude, and nobody in any community owes anybody any care about what random dude once said about random subjects. If RMS were nominated for the Secretary of Health, then his views on reproductive decisions may be slightly more relevant. Call me back when that happens.
That's your response? "too long, didn't read"? Well, good job, I guess, here's your participation trophy.
> The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot.
No, it actually says nothing at all. That's the whole point, which you may have understood if you bothered to actually read. RMS's views on random subjects is just idle thoughts of a random dude, and nobody in any community owes anybody any care about what random dude once said about random subjects. If RMS were nominated for the Secretary of Health, then his views on reproductive decisions may be slightly more relevant. Call me back when that happens.
The point is that maybe you should stop doing a theoretical defense in 1000 words and head over to stallman.org and read up on the words you're defending first.
It's really not that hard.
It's really not that hard.
I know the words. The whole point is - for the third time - is not that those words aren't as bad as the Woko Haram on Twitter tries to present it, though this is also true. The point is even if they were what they claim, it still wouldn't be a reason for ruining somebody's life, because the whole concept of "people like that" is complete and utter bullshit. People are complex. Somehow most people people by now get that reducing somebody to their gender, or disability, or condition, or skin color, or ethnicity, or some other single trait is wrong. But it's still hard to get how reducing somebody to one single random statement - made years ago at that - is wrong. I am still not sure if it's performative obtuseness or geniune psychological blockage.
> On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
He did not say that. You make it sound like he's suggesting babies actually born should be killed. No. He's supporting the current practice of testing the fetus during pregnancy, and aborting if it has down syndrome.
Warning to others, this is what happens when you get caught up in cancel-culture wokeness, repeating allegations of others without verification. You end up repeating falsehoods as justfication, take things out of context, and confirm to onlookers you don't have the ability to form your own opinions through rational, logical thought.
He did not say that. You make it sound like he's suggesting babies actually born should be killed. No. He's supporting the current practice of testing the fetus during pregnancy, and aborting if it has down syndrome.
Warning to others, this is what happens when you get caught up in cancel-culture wokeness, repeating allegations of others without verification. You end up repeating falsehoods as justfication, take things out of context, and confirm to onlookers you don't have the ability to form your own opinions through rational, logical thought.
A "fetus", as you call it, is a person. I'm not calling to cancel him, I just say its hard to support an individual with such despicable thoughts.
On the other hand, many of the signers support abortion in general, so it would be hypocritical of me to support them too.
On the other hand, many of the signers support abortion in general, so it would be hypocritical of me to support them too.
It's crazier than that. Stallman is being called out by the left/liberals/woke for a pro-choice position.
They don't have actual positions they believe in any more. They just have weapons they can use against people.
They don't have actual positions they believe in any more. They just have weapons they can use against people.
> On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
Has he though? Has he actioned this idea, or was it just something he blogged about amongst 1000's of other thoughts that floated through his head?
One of my life lessons I think is worth pointing out, is that people's actions are far more important than what they say. And this is the problem with modern western society: someone says something stupid and everyone jumps on them as an opportunity to further their own cause.
So yes you can associate with someone like this, unless they DO something terrible.
Has he though? Has he actioned this idea, or was it just something he blogged about amongst 1000's of other thoughts that floated through his head?
One of my life lessons I think is worth pointing out, is that people's actions are far more important than what they say. And this is the problem with modern western society: someone says something stupid and everyone jumps on them as an opportunity to further their own cause.
So yes you can associate with someone like this, unless they DO something terrible.
Advocating for eugenics is doing something terrible.
Edit: I don't have an opinion either way, just clarifying that I believe advocacy is action.
Edit: I don't have an opinion either way, just clarifying that I believe advocacy is action.
> On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
Would you mind providing a citation on this? Because I have yet to really read about it anywhere else.
EDIT: Ah, so it was a rather uncharitable interpretation on his views on abortion [0]. Again, a symptom of someone with zero social awareness and I'm sure it'd be thought to be beyond the pale for some people, but far from a genocidal maniac.
[0] https://stallman.org/archives/2016-sep-dec.html#31_October_2...
Would you mind providing a citation on this? Because I have yet to really read about it anywhere else.
EDIT: Ah, so it was a rather uncharitable interpretation on his views on abortion [0]. Again, a symptom of someone with zero social awareness and I'm sure it'd be thought to be beyond the pale for some people, but far from a genocidal maniac.
[0] https://stallman.org/archives/2016-sep-dec.html#31_October_2...
I'm genuinely interested where you draw the line. Politicians (opinion: read that as mostly Republicans) have advocated for heinous things too. Your last point about feeling safe and comfortable working with such people applies especially to minorities that are severely affected by political policies. How is one "political" and the other is not?
>calls for the killing of babies if they where jewish, black etc.
How is this in any way equivalent? Being jewish or black are not disabilities. Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.
I personally think abortion is horrible, but aborting babies who are going to enter life with awful disabilities is the least objectionable form of abortion there is.
You should be outraged at the millions of perfectly healthy babies that are aborted every year just for convenience. Not this.
How is this in any way equivalent? Being jewish or black are not disabilities. Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.
I personally think abortion is horrible, but aborting babies who are going to enter life with awful disabilities is the least objectionable form of abortion there is.
You should be outraged at the millions of perfectly healthy babies that are aborted every year just for convenience. Not this.
>Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.
I disagree. Have you ever met one person with that condition?
The ones I've met, are happier than 99% of the people I know.
I disagree. Have you ever met one person with that condition?
The ones I've met, are happier than 99% of the people I know.
Maybe you should tell that to rms instead of throwing anecdata at people who disagree with you.
> Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.
People with DS frequently report greater life satisfaction that people without DS. The problem isn't DS, it's how people with DS get treated by the rest of society that's a problem.
People with DS frequently report greater life satisfaction that people without DS. The problem isn't DS, it's how people with DS get treated by the rest of society that's a problem.
For those that are new to this topic this is quite a good read:
- https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
- https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
Does anybody else find it a little scary to comment on this topic in case they get called out and targeted as well? The well written link posted to “wetheweb” discusses this a bit. Some quotes:
> According to the Atlantic, a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking point,” it turns out the numbers don’t fit that narrative. Turns out just about everyone thinks we need more free speech. This includes large pluralities of all races (e.g. 75% of African Americans, 87% of Hispanics) and all ages (e.g. 79% of Americans under age 24).
> A 2017 poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, found that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have and 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.
Edit: Speaking of, somebody is flagging this story (to be clear, not this comment) to keep people from even discussing the topic. As of writing, they succeeded. We need a “this shouldn’t be flagged” button
> According to the Atlantic, a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking point,” it turns out the numbers don’t fit that narrative. Turns out just about everyone thinks we need more free speech. This includes large pluralities of all races (e.g. 75% of African Americans, 87% of Hispanics) and all ages (e.g. 79% of Americans under age 24).
> A 2017 poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, found that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have and 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.
Edit: Speaking of, somebody is flagging this story (to be clear, not this comment) to keep people from even discussing the topic. As of writing, they succeeded. We need a “this shouldn’t be flagged” button
I have never gotten more upvotes so quickly but the only comments are by people who felt comfortable because they disagree. That says something
This will not last! The day of the judgement, those of us who voted for your comment will be disclosed, and we will be duly punished for our wrongthink.
That's already the case on reddit to some extent, you can be banned for upvoting content.
From their announcement on the subject:
"""
Today, we’re making an update to address this gap: Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities.
"""
From their announcement on the subject:
"""
Today, we’re making an update to address this gap: Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities.
"""
Funny how they call their toxic manipulative behavior as healthy. Such nonsense.
It's rare that a comment floats on the line so perfectly - I don't even have a suspicion about whether you are mocking the parent for being dramatic/self-pitying, or if you are being sarcastic in a critique of those who are being accused of censorship.
So I succeeded in my purpose to mock everybody? But really, I think that we are not far from the "grand upvote disclosure" day where by some strange leak all upvotes in the internet will become public. Then people will start to be fired for having upvoted the wrong comment 20 years ago. This will be recursive, of course: if you ever upvoted a comment written by a wrong person, you become a wrong person as well. And so on. So, please be careful with the upvotes to controversial comments here.
Downvoted you just to be sure! :) (not really)
This entire approach of calling for resignations/firings (no matter the person) rejects careful, balanced thinking about the best way to proceed. Instead, it seems to feed on knee-jerk reactions to isolated statements and actions, often only heard second- or third-hand, that remind me more of a witch hunt than a thoughtful plan. I rarely see constructive discussion stemming from this approach. I'm curious about what characteristics the community really values in a leader of the FSF, but the discussion instead seems to overwhelmingly revolve around who can be forced to resign in disgrace, which leaves someone else to figure out how to actually improve the situation.
I think this can be appropriate when the situation is dire and all other courses of action have been exhausted. I'm just not sure this is such a situation.
In addition to not being particularly constructive, I agree with your point: the mob mentality means if I'm interested in discussing how to proceed _before_ everyone on the board of the FSF is fired, I open myself to the same mob that wants it done _now_. This makes discussing an already difficult problem significantly harder and more risky. Even if I bring myself to engage in conversation, many of the more deliberative folks I would like to hear from won't engage, likely for the same reasons that gave me pause. I encountered this to a surprising degree reading through comments on Ars Technica's coverage of this[0].
On the topic of the FSF, I really value that RMS has a very mature and well-considered understanding of the dynamics of computers and their software, and how those can shape society. But the points about him making others uncomfortable on a routine basis are concerning, and I think a more charismatic leader would certainly be an improvement. I would want that leader to have a similarly strong understanding of the core issues, though. I wonder if someone like Eben Moglen could perform in such a role. Come to think of it, it might be cool if Cory Doctorow could play a public-facing role for the FSF.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/free-software-ad...
I think this can be appropriate when the situation is dire and all other courses of action have been exhausted. I'm just not sure this is such a situation.
In addition to not being particularly constructive, I agree with your point: the mob mentality means if I'm interested in discussing how to proceed _before_ everyone on the board of the FSF is fired, I open myself to the same mob that wants it done _now_. This makes discussing an already difficult problem significantly harder and more risky. Even if I bring myself to engage in conversation, many of the more deliberative folks I would like to hear from won't engage, likely for the same reasons that gave me pause. I encountered this to a surprising degree reading through comments on Ars Technica's coverage of this[0].
On the topic of the FSF, I really value that RMS has a very mature and well-considered understanding of the dynamics of computers and their software, and how those can shape society. But the points about him making others uncomfortable on a routine basis are concerning, and I think a more charismatic leader would certainly be an improvement. I would want that leader to have a similarly strong understanding of the core issues, though. I wonder if someone like Eben Moglen could perform in such a role. Come to think of it, it might be cool if Cory Doctorow could play a public-facing role for the FSF.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/free-software-ad...
>a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking point,” it turns out the numbers don’t fit that narrative.
This seems irrational. For example, I both "believe that political correctness is a problem in our country" and believe that "the free speech movement", in the modern context, is composed largely of "racist dog-whistles" and "far-right talking points". They aren't mutually exclusive opinions, yet the author writes as though they obviously are. Besides believing that "political correctness" has silenced important discussions, I also believe it's only one example of many forms of irrational side-taking and hatred that have silenced important discussions, committed across the political spectrum. It seems like the author is taking advantage of the instantly recognizable noun "political correctness" as a way to package a biased opinion that purposefully ignores closely related things that are damaging discussion and civility just as dramatically.
This seems irrational. For example, I both "believe that political correctness is a problem in our country" and believe that "the free speech movement", in the modern context, is composed largely of "racist dog-whistles" and "far-right talking points". They aren't mutually exclusive opinions, yet the author writes as though they obviously are. Besides believing that "political correctness" has silenced important discussions, I also believe it's only one example of many forms of irrational side-taking and hatred that have silenced important discussions, committed across the political spectrum. It seems like the author is taking advantage of the instantly recognizable noun "political correctness" as a way to package a biased opinion that purposefully ignores closely related things that are damaging discussion and civility just as dramatically.
>somebody is flagging this story to keep people from even discussing the topic.
This applies to your entire comment, but the quoted line is most salient: Be careful not to fall into the victimized underdog mentality. There are legitimate concerns on both sides here, but there is a ton of noise in the form of pointing to imagined persons/crowds and accusing them of persecution. For example, submissions are frequently flagged for the poor quality of discussion they trigger - not simply because "somebody" is "trying to keep people from even discussing it", which is an easy sentiment to reach for, and falls under the category of fallacy that boils down to "our sociopolitical enemies are simply evil - don't you agree, fellow people on my side?".
This applies to your entire comment, but the quoted line is most salient: Be careful not to fall into the victimized underdog mentality. There are legitimate concerns on both sides here, but there is a ton of noise in the form of pointing to imagined persons/crowds and accusing them of persecution. For example, submissions are frequently flagged for the poor quality of discussion they trigger - not simply because "somebody" is "trying to keep people from even discussing it", which is an easy sentiment to reach for, and falls under the category of fallacy that boils down to "our sociopolitical enemies are simply evil - don't you agree, fellow people on my side?".
I reread your comment and I think you are at least partially correct about how I framed things. If you read this, is there a more constructive way I could have raised this concern?
I do not believe the comments in this thread constitute a low quality discussion. The story should not have been flagged, in my opinion at least, and this action has stopped some of the only balanced discussion of the topic I’ve seen online since the story first broke. It has people from both sides being mostly polite and has links to some high quality material. It’s just a topic that many people are upset by. Also, after getting flagged, they git repo saw the rate of new PR signings almost flatline
I do not believe the comments in this thread constitute a low quality discussion. The story should not have been flagged, in my opinion at least, and this action has stopped some of the only balanced discussion of the topic I’ve seen online since the story first broke. It has people from both sides being mostly polite and has links to some high quality material. It’s just a topic that many people are upset by. Also, after getting flagged, they git repo saw the rate of new PR signings almost flatline
[deleted]
It's definitely double standards for this to be flagged when the exact opposite of this was posted yesterday without a flag.
It would only be double standards if the same people who didn't flag one, did flag the other. It's entirely possible that it's entirely different people. Besides which, yesterday's _was_ flagged.
It totally shows that 'HN admins' are exactly the type of people that support cancel culture. Not really an eye opening.
You realise that regular users flag things, not admins?
You realize it has quotes ? And besides, don't be naive.
[deleted]
> political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have
It would be interesting to know what are these "important discussions".
> 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs
I don't think it literally prevents them, more like it makes them scared to share their political beliefs for fear of being called out when those are not "acceptable" beliefs. If anyone can give me an example of some political belief that is not justified in being "unacceptable", I'd be happy to re-evaluate this situation as being bad.
It would be interesting to know what are these "important discussions".
> 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs
I don't think it literally prevents them, more like it makes them scared to share their political beliefs for fear of being called out when those are not "acceptable" beliefs. If anyone can give me an example of some political belief that is not justified in being "unacceptable", I'd be happy to re-evaluate this situation as being bad.
Sure.
During dinner with my in-laws (siblings and parents), my MIL brought up the now-removed phrase from the manifesto on BlackLivesMatter.com that says "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another...".
She and the rest of the table interpreted it as "BLM wants to abolish the family as a societal unit." I suggested the alternate, "unacceptable" interpretation that they are expanding the definition of family to include non-blood relatives and encourage caring communities. This was not received well, and I ended up getting texts about the incorrectness of my belief even after we had left that day.
So now I am scared to share my political beliefs for fear of being called out, even when I share something that I view as reasonable and "possibly acceptable".
But maybe you're looking for a bigger example.
Is this an example of political correctness silencing you? I'm honestly asking, because it's interesting. Traditionally, the phrase refers to being "sensitive", so e.g. your opinion would be the politically correct opinion, and theirs would be the "not afraid to hurt feelings" opinion. But if you take the phrase more literally, it would refer to the fallacy of judging what is "correct" according solely to the politics of the observer - regardless of what those politics are. In which case, yes, their political correctness is suppressing you (and if you had treated them the same way, your political correctness would have been suppressing them at the same time).
My comment was more a direct response to the parent comment's question 'If anyone can give me an example of some political belief that is not justified in being "unacceptable"…', but my scenario only fits a wider definition "being silenced by political correctness". Every American probably has a different definition of what "political correctness is a problem in our country" means. The classic definition from right-leaning Americans is "the fight on how to say and do things in the most inclusive way possible is getting in the way of actually doing the things." But me being silenced by my in-laws fits under the umbrella of political correctness if you define it as "the ardor of your support for the 'correct' political thinking burns others". That concept currently goes by other names currently. I call it culture wars and general tribalism. I think the political correctness fight of a decade ago has shifted and evolved into the broader tribalism of today. So "political correctness" as you described it doesn't fit, but I think it fits with how I think the survey respondents interpreted it.
It's pretty much the same thing for people that say things like all guns should be banned. (This is not a stance I support BTW).
But who knows in ten years the opposite reaction might be true.
But who knows in ten years the opposite reaction might be true.
This is something I hadn't considered at all. As a non-US citizen the idea that all guns should be banned isn't that unacceptable to me in the slightest.
Yes.
> Does anybody else find it a little scary to comment on this topic in case they get called out and targeted as well?
Honestly? No.
And the problem with the numbers in that poll is that there is no reason to think that all those people assign the same meaning to the words. Everyone's in favor of "free speech," but can they articulate a nuanced definition of it and the effects on society of that definition?
Honestly? No.
And the problem with the numbers in that poll is that there is no reason to think that all those people assign the same meaning to the words. Everyone's in favor of "free speech," but can they articulate a nuanced definition of it and the effects on society of that definition?
[deleted]
I fully support RMS being on the FSF board for life.
(I also think he would be fantastic making a cameo in a bit part in Disney's Mandalorian series, bitching about "damned proprietary code" used in imperial droids that makes them hard to reprogram but that's another topic for another message board...)
(I also think he would be fantastic making a cameo in a bit part in Disney's Mandalorian series, bitching about "damned proprietary code" used in imperial droids that makes them hard to reprogram but that's another topic for another message board...)
Something tells me RMS would never in a million years work with Disney... He's been quite vocal against them for years.
* https://stallman.org/notes/2020-jul-oct.html#23_September_20...
* https://www.stallman.org/archives/2021-jan-apr.html#18_Febru...
* https://www.stallman.org/archives/2018-mar-jun.html#4_March_...
* https://stallman.org/notes/2020-jul-oct.html#23_September_20...
* https://www.stallman.org/archives/2021-jan-apr.html#18_Febru...
* https://www.stallman.org/archives/2018-mar-jun.html#4_March_...
Yes, and him being in Disney movie earning money for Disney would only tarnish his image. But one can dream, that in an alternate universe, where pop culture is not wholly owned by reptiloid corporations, there could be the Mandalorian where RMS could play a droid technician muttering about damn proprietary code... and that'd be awesome.
gaws(1)
phasnox(5)
What really gets my goat about the RMS situation is that he's not neuronormative, the same people lambasting him are the same people who would deride judgement calls that harsh against someone who's on the spectrum, yet somehow he's an acceptable target.
Yes, he's awkward as all hell, and yes, he makes people uncomfortable sometimes and has no social filter, but his contributions are too many to be ignored and his behavior to me seems to be without malice.
Yes, he's awkward as all hell, and yes, he makes people uncomfortable sometimes and has no social filter, but his contributions are too many to be ignored and his behavior to me seems to be without malice.
This is nothing more than revenge of the non-nerds.
The younger generation of technologists tend to have much better social skills than those of us "olds" who grew up on BBSes and the purple 8086 book. Writing software is now cool, so the newer cadre of developers are the same mental archetype that stuffed us into lockers for not being normal. They just do different things than play football now.
They intend to punish us for the crime of not having been properly socialized by our peers.
The younger generation of technologists tend to have much better social skills than those of us "olds" who grew up on BBSes and the purple 8086 book. Writing software is now cool, so the newer cadre of developers are the same mental archetype that stuffed us into lockers for not being normal. They just do different things than play football now.
They intend to punish us for the crime of not having been properly socialized by our peers.
RMS failed in his way to communicate with people, he hurt people and there are reports of scared away women. The community failed by not calling him on his mistakes, by not making these publicly clear as early as possible disregarding that he is stubborn but changes his mind when bad stances are explained clearly.
His victims should not be blamed, but people around him have to admit there are reasons he is compared to a spoiled child. This has to stop.
For his importance and the willingness to defend points of view which may be inconvenient for most people, he is needed in a movement which requires such a level of dedication and sacrifice. I don't believe there is anybody else who is capable living the way he lives just to stand on the very strict ethical side. He is very much needed.
Cancel culture should be handled carefully, for punishment should not make people give up on trying to improve. But a group should not silence when bad behavior happens.
If rms is to come back caution must be taken. He must be warned at the smallest mistakes, should not be handled as a never wrong semi-god and be encouraged to know when he hurts people and apologize for that. Otherwise the more people and the free software movement will be hurt.
His victims should not be blamed, but people around him have to admit there are reasons he is compared to a spoiled child. This has to stop.
For his importance and the willingness to defend points of view which may be inconvenient for most people, he is needed in a movement which requires such a level of dedication and sacrifice. I don't believe there is anybody else who is capable living the way he lives just to stand on the very strict ethical side. He is very much needed.
Cancel culture should be handled carefully, for punishment should not make people give up on trying to improve. But a group should not silence when bad behavior happens.
If rms is to come back caution must be taken. He must be warned at the smallest mistakes, should not be handled as a never wrong semi-god and be encouraged to know when he hurts people and apologize for that. Otherwise the more people and the free software movement will be hurt.
Hah, these kind of people are hilarious, as if Richard Stallmann has "victims"... he is not a criminal.
I support RMS but also believe he should be removed from the board of the FSF a second time.
Let's let him continue to advocate for free software and ensure he is able to support himself, but let's also try not to discourage people from participating because they're in fear of being harrassed or excluded.
I won't sign either letter, but of the two, I think this one is better. Neither has the right conclusion. The other suggests he be banned from the community entirely.
Edit: the other letter has a lot higher caliber of signers. I think there are a lot of influential people in the FLOSS community who haven't signed either though. Perhaps a new letter should be made that is just about removing him from the board of the FSF and from other leadership positions (including the GNU Project).
Let's let him continue to advocate for free software and ensure he is able to support himself, but let's also try not to discourage people from participating because they're in fear of being harrassed or excluded.
I won't sign either letter, but of the two, I think this one is better. Neither has the right conclusion. The other suggests he be banned from the community entirely.
Edit: the other letter has a lot higher caliber of signers. I think there are a lot of influential people in the FLOSS community who haven't signed either though. Perhaps a new letter should be made that is just about removing him from the board of the FSF and from other leadership positions (including the GNU Project).
I realize this is satire, but I’m concerned about the other open letter that this is referring to. How is it not supporting cancel culture? According to it, any transgression, no matter how small, that goes against identity politics is seen as an immediate and everlasting scarlet letter. For heaven sake’s, I don’t even know this guy, and I have very little knowledge of the FSF, but clearly this kind of pitch forking is very dangerous and very counterproductive.
Here's some readings on why many don't want RMS in a leadership position.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545420
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789
[5] https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
. .
Some well-regarded papers on sexism in CS, which are still relevant as is evident from some comments in this thread.
[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...
[5] The Elephant in the Valley (by Michele Madansky and Trae Vassallo, 2015)
https://www.elephantinthevalley.com/
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545420
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789
[5] https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
. .
Some well-regarded papers on sexism in CS, which are still relevant as is evident from some comments in this thread.
[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...
[5] The Elephant in the Valley (by Michele Madansky and Trae Vassallo, 2015)
https://www.elephantinthevalley.com/
I do love to see people come out with a public statement that says "We believe that a guy who, in public meetings, representing his organization, picks toe cheese from between his toes and consumes it in front of people, is absolutely the right leader for us! We believe that a guy who showers once or twice per year is the best public face for us. Out of all the billions of people on Earth, he's the one!"
Takes guts to make a statement like that. Bravo.
Here's a link about Stallman for the many HN readers who obviously don't know anything about the guy. I urge you to read it before forming your opinion about "cancel culture".
https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/richard_stallmans_disgrac...
Takes guts to make a statement like that. Bravo.
Here's a link about Stallman for the many HN readers who obviously don't know anything about the guy. I urge you to read it before forming your opinion about "cancel culture".
https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/richard_stallmans_disgrac...
That's it? Bad hygiene and awkward attempts at romancing women? Truly, a devil incarnate.
You don't need to be literally Satan to be a less than ideal for certain positions, especially when they involve represeting a movement or organisation.
You should go ahead and start your own movement then, be a leader instead of an asshole who tears other people down.
[deleted]
Regardless of the minor controversial views held by RMS, this recent development is a dishonest attack on his person based on false accusations parroted by blatant liars. I don't think such precedents should be given any chance at success.
RMS has been about taking principled, reasoned positions since forever.
Taking unprincipled, unreasoned positions is more fashionable.
Which tendency is more productive?
Taking unprincipled, unreasoned positions is more fashionable.
Which tendency is more productive?
What's going on with the stained glass/haloe deification of RMS in the profile photo? That alone turns me off from even reading the letter. Its visible in the HN RSS entry and on the main page: https://github.com/rms-support-letter
It's from Stallman himself: https://stallman.org/saint.html
I appreciate you providing the context instead of just downvoting. Alot of this RMS stuff can be difficult to follow for some of us who haven't followed the guys career and are trying to fully understand this story.
It's reminiscent of the /g/ sticky, but I think the image macro goes back much further than that.
Shame on everyone who signs this letter.
I personally know two women who've been sexually harassed by this creep. He has no place in leadership.
I personally know two women who've been sexually harassed by this creep. He has no place in leadership.
So we should be shameful for basing conclusions on what non-anecdotal information we've been exposed to?
I've had such encounters with someone many on HN would know. I don't hold anyone accountable for mentioning their name or talking nicely about them because how could they possibly know what happened behind closed doors?
I've had such encounters with someone many on HN would know. I don't hold anyone accountable for mentioning their name or talking nicely about them because how could they possibly know what happened behind closed doors?
You can certainly make an argument that there is not enough information and/or it is not of reliable enough provenance to accept the consequences X of action over the consequences Y of inaction. But you've simply stated that it is so by inhospitably rewording the parent post.
When a person has a critical mass of accusations of sexual assaults, AND they are open about their support (or at least sympathy) for a well-known rapist and pedophile, the accusations start to become more and more plausible.
I must be out of the loop on the sexual assault accusations. Is this one of those Twitter-exclusive stories I hear so much about?
ajfjrbfbf(2)
Choosing to bring RMS back to the FSF is a guarantee that it becomes even more irrelevant than it already has.