6 ms·

I, as many others, never personally liked Dr. Stallman and didn’t agreed with many of his views. That being said, the way that that happened is absolutely terr

by xlii 7y ago

I, as many others, never personally liked Dr. Stallman and didn’t agreed with many of his views. That being said, the way that that happened is absolutely terrifying. Fact, that people rather crucify someone instead of argue, explain or prove him wrong is the sign of our times. End of free speech is here. It’s free only if it doesn’t offend group powerful enough to destroy you, and it’s narrowing every single day. We’ve seen many instances of this happening both on personal, unpopular views and gossips and false accusations. Want to keep your career? Best you can do is to steer out of the social media and don’t share your thoughts with anyone. Not only controversial ones, because what might not be controversial now, might be controversial in 10 years, and you will suffer because of it.

roguecoder 7y ago
“If you actively harass women at work for literally 30 years and do not stop any of the many, many times people to stop, and then also justify the sexual abuse of children as your job tries to distance itself from it’s collaboration with a know pedophile you might lose your job” doesn’t seem like it’s going to be a situation that will ever be relevant to my life, thank.
- w323898 7y ago
  I too am very disturbed by the historic records of Stallman's bad behavior. Was he ever forced to take sensitivity training or anything, or did everyone just ignore it?
  - fatbird 7y ago
    Everyone put plants in their office to passive aggressively shield themselves, because RMS hates plants.
    - robocat 7y ago
      That's pretty much straight from encyclopediadramatica (except they refer to a particular plant) or second-hand (starsandrobots). The rumour would be more poetic if it said he liked plants, and that he feigned having a phobia to get people to have office plants. Edit: removed unintentional copy pasta.
    - roguecoder 7y ago
      I don’t know why this is being downvoted: it is actually true. I know it sounds ridiculous, but that is because tolerating his behavior for this long was ridiculous.
ken 7y ago
Or be a comedian. Satire is practically immune. It’s hard to attack someone for something when they say something other than what they’re really talking about.
- krige 7y ago
  Not any more. See the recent (still current?) push towards cancelling David Chapelle.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - luckylion 7y ago
    That's not new though, is it? Comedy has often created push back from groups that feel like you can make jokes, but not about them. The new part seems to be that it's very public and, if you witness it live, seems very powerful. Before Twitter, you wouldn't see/hear about the angry letters sent to TV stations or newspapers, unless they were so numerous that the executives made a decision to give in to their demands.
smallmancontrov 7y ago
Terrifying is right. Look at how the telephone game evolved a debate about what Minsky knew or didn't into a defense of child sex trafficking: Stallman: > the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Selam G. > [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. VICE: > Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. New York Post: > MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’
- flashman 7y ago
  Oh my god. That's so chilling. They took his words and accurately reported them. I'm really going to have to watch what I assert is the most plausible scenario about trafficked underage sex slaves.
ryan_lane 7y ago
If your views are pro voluntary pedophilia I think maybe you should suffer. That's a pretty ageless thing in regards of people not being OK with it, and that shouldn't be a shock to you. The government isn't telling him that he can't share these views, so take your free speech bullshit somewhere else. You're free to say things, and we as a society are free to show you the fucking door. He shared his awful views (and was an active abuser) for decades, and finally we're showing him the door.
massaman_yams 7y ago
Clearly you don't have the full picture. This isn't about a difference of views; it's about a long-standing pattern of inappropriate behavior, including (but not limited to) overtly and deliberately staring at women's breasts in a professional context. There's no innocuous explanation here; this isn't an isolated mistake.
- robocat 7y ago
  Many people (and Richard too[1]) have wondered if he is somewhat on the autistic spectrum. An "innocuous" partial disability would cause poor social interactions, and would lead to difficultly learning social nuances. Of course he could also just be socially inept (i.e. no excuse for failing to learn good behaviour) and he clearly isn't disabled (anyone actually dealing with autism is doing life in hard mode). https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxymoron.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
  - massaman_yams 7y ago
    Let's assume he's on the spectrum for the sake of argument. If you miss some indirect signals, that's one thing - but when you're explicitly told specific behaviors are inappropriate, and you keep doing them anyway, being on the spectrum is not a defense.
mrtksn 7y ago
This seems like a false positive for the defence system of the society. When you don't have it, I mean, when a behaviour or opinion is not crucified worse things happen(angry mobs, oppression of groups etc.). Recently I have been reading Sapiens, it the book Homo Sapiens is singled out about its ability to function in groups of up to 150 people. Other humanoids were not able to do that. I think, however, that discussing thigs on Twitter/Reddit is the same thing as discussing things with thousands and even millions of people that are gathered in a single place. Our species does have the tools to make this possible(the internet) but lacks methods to make it functional. The only thing we have is to detect an idea that somewhat sounds band and oppress it before bad things happen. That way we have some wrongfully vilified people but at the same time, we are able to stop the creation of a group of extremists(some people will not understand the discussion, mistook it for a validation of their sick ideas and if no vilification happens they will take action). Anyway, that's why we need privacy. We should be able to discuss things in small enough groups without fear of being vilified, in a group with no outsiders we would know if someone is up to something bad or and take an appropriate action instead of overreacting and mislabeling. High-quality public discussions are beyond our capability.
cjslep 7y ago
> End of free speech is here. No, it's not. There have always been consequences to speech. Before social media, the traditional media would be the method of choice of stirring up people into a mob demanding resignations. It's not new. What is new, is that it is no longer a power centralized to owners of traditional media. It is now distributed, and thanks to Twitter specifically, in a way that promotes "tyrranny by the mob" which the founding fathers themselves abhorred. This isn't the death of free speech. Instead, view it as tech kicking itself in the balls because the people making software didn't understand how humans would leverage it at a society level scale. It's why many of us are working of federated but social public forms of media, like the 90s and early 2000's, because that worked at scale without a "tyrranny of the mob". All that being said, it is hard to be all "free speech is over" doom-sayer when the person in question has repeatedly (and we're talking decades) said creepy things that cumulatively sets up a pattern of behavior. This isn't Joe Shmoe hopping onto the internet the first time and losing his job. It's disingenuous to try to spin this event that way.
- xlii 7y ago
  > All that being said, it is hard to be all "free speech is over" doom-sayer when the person in question has repeatedly (and we're talking decades) said creepy things that cumulatively sets up a pattern of behavior. This isn't Joe Shmoe hopping onto the internet the first time and losing his job. It's disingenuous to try to spin this event that way. I think that’s the point here. RMS was always a creep who had very odd opinions on many different topics. I never liked the man nor thought much about his opinions and yet I was using software he created. He is creep, but he was tolerated. I find 2 perspectives here. First is - am I the creep right now who is being tolerated. Maybe? I don’t know 2050 standards. Maybe I am and will be removed because I shown 2050 Toxic Behavior for years, which might be criticizing social media. No idea. Second is - RMS is a human being. Not every one of us is pristine human being nor have luxury of being pristine and perfectly moral. Biology and past traumas do their thing. As far as I know, there aren’t any crimes he committed and if there were, he should be properly sentenced. If he was tolerated for past 30 years, shouldn’t it be more in sense of “ok dude, your time is up, here are your accolades, pack your stuff and have fun” instead of having witch hunt bringing every single piece of dirt people can find? Nah, that wouldn’t make sense, right? Free speech is not all over, because I’m typing this right now. I am aware, though, that criticizing RMS “process” might bring consequences to my life if the mob decides to target me. If this process progresses we’ll end up in the state where I won’t discuss anything online and keep all my knowledge and experience for myself. And there was a time in history where life was just like that.
aptwebapps 7y ago
Do you really think he was canned because of this one incident? There are years of bad behavior here. "We will, as always, be treated to much examination of the precise nature and mass of the last straw, with observations that it would not by itself be sufficient to cause spinal damage in camels, and is therefore utterly harmless." https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1173796229131767808 https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1173796229131767808
ironic_ali 7y ago
Bill Burr and Dave Chapelle address this pretty well in their newest specials. Worth the watch IMHO.
hobofan 7y ago
RMS is a synonym for semantic pedantry and exploring hypotheticals. In such a high-profile position as he has, he should have learned by now when it is the right time to apply those skill and when not to. I'm frankly surprised that his arguments haven't cost him his position earlier.

by xlii 7y ago

roguecoder 7y ago

“If you actively harass women at work for literally 30 years and do not stop any of the many, many times people to stop, and then also justify the sexual abuse of children as your job tries to distance itself from it’s collaboration with a know pedophile you might lose your job” doesn’t seem like it’s going to be a situation that will ever be relevant to my life, thank.

w323898 7y ago
I too am very disturbed by the historic records of Stallman's bad behavior. Was he ever forced to take sensitivity training or anything, or did everyone just ignore it?
- fatbird 7y ago
  Everyone put plants in their office to passive aggressively shield themselves, because RMS hates plants.
  - robocat 7y ago
    That's pretty much straight from encyclopediadramatica (except they refer to a particular plant) or second-hand (starsandrobots). The rumour would be more poetic if it said he liked plants, and that he feigned having a phobia to get people to have office plants. Edit: removed unintentional copy pasta.
  - roguecoder 7y ago
    I don’t know why this is being downvoted: it is actually true. I know it sounds ridiculous, but that is because tolerating his behavior for this long was ridiculous.

ken 7y ago

Or be a comedian. Satire is practically immune. It’s hard to attack someone for something when they say something other than what they’re really talking about.

krige 7y ago
Not any more. See the recent (still current?) push towards cancelling David Chapelle.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- luckylion 7y ago
  That's not new though, is it? Comedy has often created push back from groups that feel like you can make jokes, but not about them. The new part seems to be that it's very public and, if you witness it live, seems very powerful. Before Twitter, you wouldn't see/hear about the angry letters sent to TV stations or newspapers, unless they were so numerous that the executives made a decision to give in to their demands.

smallmancontrov 7y ago

Terrifying is right. Look at how the telephone game evolved a debate about what Minsky knew or didn't into a defense of child sex trafficking: Stallman: > the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Selam G. > [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. VICE: > Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. New York Post: > MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’

flashman 7y ago
Oh my god. That's so chilling. They took his words and accurately reported them. I'm really going to have to watch what I assert is the most plausible scenario about trafficked underage sex slaves.

ryan_lane 7y ago

If your views are pro voluntary pedophilia I think maybe you should suffer. That's a pretty ageless thing in regards of people not being OK with it, and that shouldn't be a shock to you. The government isn't telling him that he can't share these views, so take your free speech bullshit somewhere else. You're free to say things, and we as a society are free to show you the fucking door. He shared his awful views (and was an active abuser) for decades, and finally we're showing him the door.

massaman_yams 7y ago

Clearly you don't have the full picture. This isn't about a difference of views; it's about a long-standing pattern of inappropriate behavior, including (but not limited to) overtly and deliberately staring at women's breasts in a professional context. There's no innocuous explanation here; this isn't an isolated mistake.

robocat 7y ago
Many people (and Richard too[1]) have wondered if he is somewhat on the autistic spectrum. An "innocuous" partial disability would cause poor social interactions, and would lead to difficultly learning social nuances. Of course he could also just be socially inept (i.e. no excuse for failing to learn good behaviour) and he clearly isn't disabled (anyone actually dealing with autism is doing life in hard mode). https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxymoron.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
- massaman_yams 7y ago
  Let's assume he's on the spectrum for the sake of argument. If you miss some indirect signals, that's one thing - but when you're explicitly told specific behaviors are inappropriate, and you keep doing them anyway, being on the spectrum is not a defense.

mrtksn 7y ago

This seems like a false positive for the defence system of the society. When you don't have it, I mean, when a behaviour or opinion is not crucified worse things happen(angry mobs, oppression of groups etc.). Recently I have been reading Sapiens, it the book Homo Sapiens is singled out about its ability to function in groups of up to 150 people. Other humanoids were not able to do that. I think, however, that discussing thigs on Twitter/Reddit is the same thing as discussing things with thousands and even millions of people that are gathered in a single place. Our species does have the tools to make this possible(the internet) but lacks methods to make it functional. The only thing we have is to detect an idea that somewhat sounds band and oppress it before bad things happen. That way we have some wrongfully vilified people but at the same time, we are able to stop the creation of a group of extremists(some people will not understand the discussion, mistook it for a validation of their sick ideas and if no vilification happens they will take action). Anyway, that's why we need privacy. We should be able to discuss things in small enough groups without fear of being vilified, in a group with no outsiders we would know if someone is up to something bad or and take an appropriate action instead of overreacting and mislabeling. High-quality public discussions are beyond our capability.

cjslep 7y ago

> End of free speech is here. No, it's not. There have always been consequences to speech. Before social media, the traditional media would be the method of choice of stirring up people into a mob demanding resignations. It's not new. What is new, is that it is no longer a power centralized to owners of traditional media. It is now distributed, and thanks to Twitter specifically, in a way that promotes "tyrranny by the mob" which the founding fathers themselves abhorred. This isn't the death of free speech. Instead, view it as tech kicking itself in the balls because the people making software didn't understand how humans would leverage it at a society level scale. It's why many of us are working of federated but social public forms of media, like the 90s and early 2000's, because that worked at scale without a "tyrranny of the mob". All that being said, it is hard to be all "free speech is over" doom-sayer when the person in question has repeatedly (and we're talking decades) said creepy things that cumulatively sets up a pattern of behavior. This isn't Joe Shmoe hopping onto the internet the first time and losing his job. It's disingenuous to try to spin this event that way.

xlii 7y ago
> All that being said, it is hard to be all "free speech is over" doom-sayer when the person in question has repeatedly (and we're talking decades) said creepy things that cumulatively sets up a pattern of behavior. This isn't Joe Shmoe hopping onto the internet the first time and losing his job. It's disingenuous to try to spin this event that way. I think that’s the point here. RMS was always a creep who had very odd opinions on many different topics. I never liked the man nor thought much about his opinions and yet I was using software he created. He is creep, but he was tolerated. I find 2 perspectives here. First is - am I the creep right now who is being tolerated. Maybe? I don’t know 2050 standards. Maybe I am and will be removed because I shown 2050 Toxic Behavior for years, which might be criticizing social media. No idea. Second is - RMS is a human being. Not every one of us is pristine human being nor have luxury of being pristine and perfectly moral. Biology and past traumas do their thing. As far as I know, there aren’t any crimes he committed and if there were, he should be properly sentenced. If he was tolerated for past 30 years, shouldn’t it be more in sense of “ok dude, your time is up, here are your accolades, pack your stuff and have fun” instead of having witch hunt bringing every single piece of dirt people can find? Nah, that wouldn’t make sense, right? Free speech is not all over, because I’m typing this right now. I am aware, though, that criticizing RMS “process” might bring consequences to my life if the mob decides to target me. If this process progresses we’ll end up in the state where I won’t discuss anything online and keep all my knowledge and experience for myself. And there was a time in history where life was just like that.

aptwebapps 7y ago

Do you really think he was canned because of this one incident? There are years of bad behavior here. "We will, as always, be treated to much examination of the precise nature and mass of the last straw, with observations that it would not by itself be sufficient to cause spinal damage in camels, and is therefore utterly harmless." https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1173796229131767808 https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1173796229131767808

ironic_ali 7y ago

Bill Burr and Dave Chapelle address this pretty well in their newest specials. Worth the watch IMHO.

hobofan 7y ago

RMS is a synonym for semantic pedantry and exploring hypotheticals. In such a high-profile position as he has, he should have learned by now when it is the right time to apply those skill and when not to. I'm frankly surprised that his arguments haven't cost him his position earlier.