5 ms·

Richard is specifically a public figure who influences a lot of people, and some of that influence comes from platforms like his MIT professorship that imply en

Richard is specifically a public figure who influences a lot of people, and some of that influence comes from platforms like his MIT professorship that imply endorsement from other groups. I agree it's distasteful for people to focus on personal judgements about Stallman's communications when we haven't walked in his shoes, mentally. But public discourse is necessary to determine what to do with the platform given to comments like this - including if they come from "non-neurotypical" individuals. Separately, because Stallman's area of focus extends into community formation and protection of individual rights, I don't agree that his statements about sexual coercion are separate from the rest of his work.

natalyarostova 7y ago
>Separately, because Stallman's area of focus extends into community formation and protection of individual rights, I don't agree that his statements about sexual coercion are separate from the rest of his work. That's a fair point. If someone is going to claim a position of moral leadership over community formation, then being judged on their strange political opinions seems reasonable. In (what I claim) is an ideal world, the fixed cost to this type of collective action against a person like Stallman, would be high enough that only those who participate in his communities would care about this stuff. I still worry that the fixed cost towards sharing/shaming is so low, that people who have no vested interest in Stallman's locus of influence can still join in for fun. This goes for all internet mob justice.
mjevans 7y ago
I think the point that RMS was trying to make is that using inherently charged and prejudice language against an individual is sensationalist and (as mentioned) prejudiced. We should be able to have rational, mature, fact based discussions and entertain suppositions about what may have happened without jumping to conclusions.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > I think the point that RMS was trying to make is that using inherently charged and prejudice language against an individual is sensationalist and (as mentioned) prejudiced. Not only that, but using such language--for example, a term like "sexual assault"--does not tell you the actual facts of what happened. It only tells you someone's judgment. But if I'm going to take the time to form an opinion about some event of public interest, I don't want anyone else to tell me their judgment about it. I just want to be told the facts. I can make my own judgments. But the media almost never tells you the facts; they only tell you the judgments.
- evrydayhustling 7y ago
  Stallman's email reacted to the use of "accused of sexual assault" in an event announcement. This phrase matches the legal definition of the current facts, so this is not about someone choosing inflammatory language beyond the norms. Stallman would prefer that language distinguish between physical coercion and the kind of coercion that can take place because of a difference in knowledge or power (in this case, age). That's a fine point to discuss, but there are very considered reasons people use the same term - it's not just sloppy language. Also, he'd prefer to assume a scenario where Epstein hid any coercion from his guests - which would make this a "an alleged but possibly unknowing sexual assault". I'm not sure what that's supposed to do to our discourse. Is everyone supposed to imagine the same scenario he does? Or the most expultory possible scenario? I think the uncertainty of the situation and presumption of innocence were already covered pretty well by "alleged". The facts of the actual case are for the courts to sort out. Stallman's focus on avoiding the factual label for the accusations is a weird priority, and there is nothing immature or irrational about calling it out.
  - partialrecall 7y ago
    > " Is everyone supposed to imagine the same scenario he does?" I think it's fair to expect everybody to consider the possibility (and subsequently discount it for lack of credibility.)

natalyarostova 7y ago

>Separately, because Stallman's area of focus extends into community formation and protection of individual rights, I don't agree that his statements about sexual coercion are separate from the rest of his work. That's a fair point. If someone is going to claim a position of moral leadership over community formation, then being judged on their strange political opinions seems reasonable. In (what I claim) is an ideal world, the fixed cost to this type of collective action against a person like Stallman, would be high enough that only those who participate in his communities would care about this stuff. I still worry that the fixed cost towards sharing/shaming is so low, that people who have no vested interest in Stallman's locus of influence can still join in for fun. This goes for all internet mob justice.

mjevans 7y ago

I think the point that RMS was trying to make is that using inherently charged and prejudice language against an individual is sensationalist and (as mentioned) prejudiced. We should be able to have rational, mature, fact based discussions and entertain suppositions about what may have happened without jumping to conclusions.

pdonis 7y ago
> I think the point that RMS was trying to make is that using inherently charged and prejudice language against an individual is sensationalist and (as mentioned) prejudiced. Not only that, but using such language--for example, a term like "sexual assault"--does not tell you the actual facts of what happened. It only tells you someone's judgment. But if I'm going to take the time to form an opinion about some event of public interest, I don't want anyone else to tell me their judgment about it. I just want to be told the facts. I can make my own judgments. But the media almost never tells you the facts; they only tell you the judgments.
evrydayhustling 7y ago
Stallman's email reacted to the use of "accused of sexual assault" in an event announcement. This phrase matches the legal definition of the current facts, so this is not about someone choosing inflammatory language beyond the norms. Stallman would prefer that language distinguish between physical coercion and the kind of coercion that can take place because of a difference in knowledge or power (in this case, age). That's a fine point to discuss, but there are very considered reasons people use the same term - it's not just sloppy language. Also, he'd prefer to assume a scenario where Epstein hid any coercion from his guests - which would make this a "an alleged but possibly unknowing sexual assault". I'm not sure what that's supposed to do to our discourse. Is everyone supposed to imagine the same scenario he does? Or the most expultory possible scenario? I think the uncertainty of the situation and presumption of innocence were already covered pretty well by "alleged". The facts of the actual case are for the courts to sort out. Stallman's focus on avoiding the factual label for the accusations is a weird priority, and there is nothing immature or irrational about calling it out.
- partialrecall 7y ago
  > " Is everyone supposed to imagine the same scenario he does?" I think it's fair to expect everybody to consider the possibility (and subsequently discount it for lack of credibility.)