5 ms·

In its most literal form I don't know if I would say I disagreed with the core of what Stallman was saying in the email (that "sexual assault" should perhaps be

In its most literal form I don't know if I would say I disagreed with the core of what Stallman was saying in the email (that "sexual assault" should perhaps be revised in its usage), but Stallman was tone-deaf at best to have pontificated on such a comparatively minor (and highly arguable) matter when he did and where he did. Worse, with what he wrote, there is a reading of the email where the subtext is that Stallman was trying to mitigate Minsky's culpability. I won't comment on whether I think that was indeed what he was trying to do, but it's not a good look, regardless of whether that is indeed what he was trying to do. Many people will acknowledge the value of Stallman's stubborn, iconoclastic opinions. I'd count myself among them, and it's a little sad to see Stallman go from his pulpits. But on the other hand, I'm relieved: it might be in Stallman's constitution to be at all times a rational reasoning machine, impervious to emotion and sentiment, but this is not how most people are, and on many occasions Stallman has shown that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about this. There are times when one should refrain from saying something that is merely correct because of the symbolic meaning it would have, or the emotional responses it would elicit.

throwaway-1436 7y ago
What if he's actually incapable of ever knowing or understanding the emotional context you just described?
roenxi 7y ago
> In its most literal form I don't know if I would say I disagreed with the core of what Stallman You qualify this, but that is basically the core of what Stallman supporters are looking at. Saying something that is literally true, in an industry which is known to be stuffed with some very literal minded people, should not be grounds for anyone resigning. It should be grounds for doing nothing, apologising or clarifying depending on what was said. It is risky to punish people for what they did not literally say. Particularly if they are the sort of person who is well known for striving to be literally correct.
- bitwize 7y ago
  > Saying something that is literally true, in an industry which is known to be stuffed with some very literal minded people, should not be grounds for anyone resigning. It should be grounds for doing nothing, apologising or clarifying depending on what was said. If you think this industry still has anywhere near the room for "literal minded people" that it once had, think again. Even proper participation in Scrum ceremonies requires nuance and a capacity to read a room. Stallman's political views have always been a little weird and sometimes gross, but he said what he said because his autism is weapons-grade and with that comes a fixation on "hobgoblin of little minds" tier logical consistency. And with all that sweet, sweet corporate money, the normies, who prioritize the feelings of their peers over logic, have effectively taken over open source and installed normies in key positions, the better not to have to deal with icky nerds who say embarrassing things and don't know how to "play the game". And really, that's part of what this is all about. This is the new guard purging the old guard. It's also why Linus was subjected to a struggle session last year and why he may yet get the axe from the Linux Foundation.

throwaway-1436 7y ago

What if he's actually incapable of ever knowing or understanding the emotional context you just described?

roenxi 7y ago

> In its most literal form I don't know if I would say I disagreed with the core of what Stallman You qualify this, but that is basically the core of what Stallman supporters are looking at. Saying something that is literally true, in an industry which is known to be stuffed with some very literal minded people, should not be grounds for anyone resigning. It should be grounds for doing nothing, apologising or clarifying depending on what was said. It is risky to punish people for what they did not literally say. Particularly if they are the sort of person who is well known for striving to be literally correct.

bitwize 7y ago
> Saying something that is literally true, in an industry which is known to be stuffed with some very literal minded people, should not be grounds for anyone resigning. It should be grounds for doing nothing, apologising or clarifying depending on what was said. If you think this industry still has anywhere near the room for "literal minded people" that it once had, think again. Even proper participation in Scrum ceremonies requires nuance and a capacity to read a room. Stallman's political views have always been a little weird and sometimes gross, but he said what he said because his autism is weapons-grade and with that comes a fixation on "hobgoblin of little minds" tier logical consistency. And with all that sweet, sweet corporate money, the normies, who prioritize the feelings of their peers over logic, have effectively taken over open source and installed normies in key positions, the better not to have to deal with icky nerds who say embarrassing things and don't know how to "play the game". And really, that's part of what this is all about. This is the new guard purging the old guard. It's also why Linus was subjected to a struggle session last year and why he may yet get the axe from the Linux Foundation.