6 ms·

If you can't express yourself on certain topics, there's a chilling effect where people just don't talk about them and no further progress can be made. There ar

by eloff 7y ago

If you can't express yourself on certain topics, there's a chilling effect where people just don't talk about them and no further progress can be made. There are now plenty of topics like this including gender [edit: I should specify that it's fine to talk about gender, but only if you have certain permissible positions on the topic]. This list used to include other things like being pro gay rights, pro equality for races or gender - but at least you were able to have those conversations without fear of being lynched and society moved forward. You should be allowed to voice a viewpoint that's against the mainstream viewpoint without risk of making yourself unemployable. It's atrocious that our academic institutions, which used to be a bulwark of free-speech are leading the charge here. Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements. He perhaps should not have made them in a work forum, but the consequences here are way out of proportion to the "crime". You've been throwing a lot of stones here, but I'm sure you've held or expressed viewpoints just as questionable at some time in your life. I know I have. Should you now be denied the right to make a living if they come to light?

widowlark 7y ago
>He perhaps should not have made them in a work forum Look, that's the reason he's gone. So you said it yourself. That was his decision.
- eloff 7y ago
  You would think universities would be a little more lax than a Fortune 500 company when it comes to freedom of expression . They certainly have been in many other aspects. You can rail all you want against the oppressive patriarchy and talk about toxic masculinity, but to question the statutory rape laws (which are different in every country, so clearly there are different viewpoints on the subject) - that's unpardonable? It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Warn him to take the discussion elsewhere and then wait for the outrage storm to blow over. People have such short attention spans in these social media days anyway.
  - widowlark 7y ago
    The great thing about this country is that others cannot define your own tolerances or lack thereof. The university had it's tolerance tested, and Stallman lost. If you don't like it, I encourage you to speak out like you are now. But it's not unfair, and it's not a violation of free speech or thought.
    - bluecalm 7y ago
      So if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well? Following your argument you could say a given company had its tolerance, it was tested and those people lost. Firing people for political views, especially expressed in coherent not aggressive way is certainly violation of free speech and thought. It's also currently legal in US.
      - widowlark 7y ago
        It would be likely legal, though the companies would probably face backlash from the public. That drives a lot of these decisions.
      - mithr 7y ago
        > if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well? Not all opinions are the same. Advocating for open borders and basic income are fairly straightforward political opinions. So is being a member of the republican or democratic party, or saying you support lower taxes, or even that you voted for Trump. Had Stallman resigned over reactions to calmly expressing these type of opinions, the fallout would be very different, and I suspect most people would say something similar to what you've said, and side with him. But if a person repeatedly says, in public, that our definition of pedophilia as a necessarily-bad thing isn't right, and that people are being too hard on the billionaires who recently got in trouble for this -- even if they do so calmly and coherently -- they are espousing views that many people believe would lead to actual harm to actual human beings. The same would be true for someone who openly supports fascism, or calls for the deportation of Hispanic-looking citizens (I want to avoid a straw-man here, so to be clear I am absolutely not saying Stallman supports these views; they're just examples). In that case, don't other people have a right to react negatively to that? As for the consequences of that reaction, that is somewhat proportional to the person's position. If that person was a gas station clerk who, outside of work hours, had posted something on a forum, then we'd again be having a different discussion. But the positions of President of the FSF and Visiting Scientist at MIT carry a lot more weight. Putting someone in these positions who not only holds but eagerly volunteers these types of views is seen as an implicit endorsement of these views by the FSF/MIT -- _especially_ when he chooses to broadcast these views directly to his work community, directly in defense of someone at the center of a recent scandal. > Firing people for [their] views ... is certainly violation of free speech and thought Stallman is free to _think_ what he wants. He's even free to _say_ what he wants -- he was never censured afaik. What he is no longer free to do is to continue doing so from the position of President of the FSF or a Visiting Scientist at MIT. Should an institution (such as MIT or the FSF) be forced to protect its personnel from all consequences for individually sharing _any_ opinion in any public forum? I don't think they should.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
electricviolet 7y ago
I want everyone to understand the medium his comments were made in. This was not just a "work forum", it was a mailing list containing thousands of people in the MIT computer science community, including professors, researchers, administrative assistants, graduate students, and hundreds of undergraduates. This isn't just a matter of his comments being inappropriate, it's also about him arguing them in an effectively public forum.
- ralfd 7y ago
  But Stallman replied to an email advertising a gathering to protest MIT's handling of the Epstein scandal. I have no idea if that sort of political email is common in the mailing list, but if it is appropriate to share/advocate the protest, surely it should also appropriate to discuss the topic? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
  - zaroth 7y ago
    The original poster on the thread even raises a question of the ethics of having the discussion on csail-related before Stallman even gets involved. I think people are missing the context of the level of shitshow that’s going on at MIT CSAIL right now with Epstein, Ito, Minsky, and now Stallman. When the original story blew up over Media Lab and the Administration lied that they didn’t know anything about donations to Epstein, I can only imagine the chaos.
- doubleunplussed 7y ago
  It's my understanding that a protest against Minsky was being advertised on the same mailing list. Was that an inappropriate medium for the protest to be advertised as well?
human20190310 7y ago
Stallman's controversial opinions stood for ages when they were hypothetical. But at this moment in time, they've intersected with the real-world activities of organizations that he has considerable influence over. He seems to have prioritized theoretical point-making over the organizational necessity of addressing people's concerns. Running things and debating things are two different activities, and for Stallman those things are currently in conflict. Maybe he's tempermentally incapable of dealing with conflicting imperatives; in any case he seems to have taken the absolute route to resignation.
- noobermin 7y ago
  I think this is a better argument than merely talking about the content of the speech. That said the question is whether the punishment matches the severity of the crime. There was no due process here so we'll never know for sure.
  - differentView 7y ago
    Stallman is all about being technical. Technically, he resigned. So what due process was denied to him?
    - noobermin 7y ago
      He was forced to resign. Holding a gun to one's head and telling them to recite a confession doesn't make it authentic. I don't want to pretend he had no choice in the decision, but to pretend he did if of his own free volition is false.
      - differentView 7y ago
        You mean like how Stallman pretended that the underage girl that was on Epstein's island had sex with Minsky of her own free volition?
        noobermin 7y ago
CodeCube 7y ago
Do you really think that no one has suffered for having conversations pro gay rights, civil rights, gender equality, and all those other previously inadmissible topics? No, they spoke publicly, and paid the (unfortunate) consequences of the day ... but they carried on because it was the right thing to do. What exactly is it that we're trying to "express ourselves" about here? what "progress" are we trying to make on old men having sex with young girls? If there's change to be made, then someone is going to have to weather the cultural storm that speaking out about it brings in order to bring change. If it's not worth weathering that storm, then maybe it's not worth having that discussion in the first place.
- eloff 7y ago
  Of course not, it's my position that there shouldn't be such serious consequences for having a dissenting opinion. Minority opinions are in fact the only way we make progress in science our society. Everything accepted now was once a fringe idea. There is a real conversion to be had about our statutory rape laws. They're absurd in some aspects. That's beside the point.
  - widowlark 7y ago
    Every minority opinion has paid the price for being one. You have to keep fighting if you believe what you're saying, it's never been easy to make waves and it took at lot to get to this point. However, comments like what Stallman made are nearly indefensible and only lead to people getting removed. In the end, if protecting pedophiles becomes the norm, he will be exonerated as a martyr of the movement.
    - eloff 7y ago
      Are you really saying Minsky is a paedophile? You are exaggerating the situation here unfairly.
      - cygx 7y ago
        Stallman used to argue that 'voluntarily paedophilia' should be decriminalized, cf quotes from 2003 and 2006[1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d59r46/richard_stallman_resigns_from_mit_over_epstein/f0lu3o6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d59r46/richard...
fatbird 7y ago
> Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements. These problematic statements were made in the context of someone who has a long, long history of upsetting, angering and offending people with bad behaviour. People in CSAIL kept plants around them because Stallman hates plants and it functioned like garlic to a vampire. Firing him may be disproportionate to the moment, but it's overdue given the history. The guy who fired him literally said "straw that broke the camel's back."

by eloff 7y ago

widowlark 7y ago

>He perhaps should not have made them in a work forum Look, that's the reason he's gone. So you said it yourself. That was his decision.

eloff 7y ago
You would think universities would be a little more lax than a Fortune 500 company when it comes to freedom of expression . They certainly have been in many other aspects. You can rail all you want against the oppressive patriarchy and talk about toxic masculinity, but to question the statutory rape laws (which are different in every country, so clearly there are different viewpoints on the subject) - that's unpardonable? It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Warn him to take the discussion elsewhere and then wait for the outrage storm to blow over. People have such short attention spans in these social media days anyway.
- widowlark 7y ago
  The great thing about this country is that others cannot define your own tolerances or lack thereof. The university had it's tolerance tested, and Stallman lost. If you don't like it, I encourage you to speak out like you are now. But it's not unfair, and it's not a violation of free speech or thought.
  - bluecalm 7y ago
    So if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well? Following your argument you could say a given company had its tolerance, it was tested and those people lost. Firing people for political views, especially expressed in coherent not aggressive way is certainly violation of free speech and thought. It's also currently legal in US.
    - widowlark 7y ago
      It would be likely legal, though the companies would probably face backlash from the public. That drives a lot of these decisions.
    - mithr 7y ago
      > if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well? Not all opinions are the same. Advocating for open borders and basic income are fairly straightforward political opinions. So is being a member of the republican or democratic party, or saying you support lower taxes, or even that you voted for Trump. Had Stallman resigned over reactions to calmly expressing these type of opinions, the fallout would be very different, and I suspect most people would say something similar to what you've said, and side with him. But if a person repeatedly says, in public, that our definition of pedophilia as a necessarily-bad thing isn't right, and that people are being too hard on the billionaires who recently got in trouble for this -- even if they do so calmly and coherently -- they are espousing views that many people believe would lead to actual harm to actual human beings. The same would be true for someone who openly supports fascism, or calls for the deportation of Hispanic-looking citizens (I want to avoid a straw-man here, so to be clear I am absolutely not saying Stallman supports these views; they're just examples). In that case, don't other people have a right to react negatively to that? As for the consequences of that reaction, that is somewhat proportional to the person's position. If that person was a gas station clerk who, outside of work hours, had posted something on a forum, then we'd again be having a different discussion. But the positions of President of the FSF and Visiting Scientist at MIT carry a lot more weight. Putting someone in these positions who not only holds but eagerly volunteers these types of views is seen as an implicit endorsement of these views by the FSF/MIT -- _especially_ when he chooses to broadcast these views directly to his work community, directly in defense of someone at the center of a recent scandal. > Firing people for [their] views ... is certainly violation of free speech and thought Stallman is free to _think_ what he wants. He's even free to _say_ what he wants -- he was never censured afaik. What he is no longer free to do is to continue doing so from the position of President of the FSF or a Visiting Scientist at MIT. Should an institution (such as MIT or the FSF) be forced to protect its personnel from all consequences for individually sharing _any_ opinion in any public forum? I don't think they should.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

electricviolet 7y ago

I want everyone to understand the medium his comments were made in. This was not just a "work forum", it was a mailing list containing thousands of people in the MIT computer science community, including professors, researchers, administrative assistants, graduate students, and hundreds of undergraduates. This isn't just a matter of his comments being inappropriate, it's also about him arguing them in an effectively public forum.

ralfd 7y ago
But Stallman replied to an email advertising a gathering to protest MIT's handling of the Epstein scandal. I have no idea if that sort of political email is common in the mailing list, but if it is appropriate to share/advocate the protest, surely it should also appropriate to discuss the topic? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
- zaroth 7y ago
  The original poster on the thread even raises a question of the ethics of having the discussion on csail-related before Stallman even gets involved. I think people are missing the context of the level of shitshow that’s going on at MIT CSAIL right now with Epstein, Ito, Minsky, and now Stallman. When the original story blew up over Media Lab and the Administration lied that they didn’t know anything about donations to Epstein, I can only imagine the chaos.
doubleunplussed 7y ago
It's my understanding that a protest against Minsky was being advertised on the same mailing list. Was that an inappropriate medium for the protest to be advertised as well?

human20190310 7y ago

Stallman's controversial opinions stood for ages when they were hypothetical. But at this moment in time, they've intersected with the real-world activities of organizations that he has considerable influence over. He seems to have prioritized theoretical point-making over the organizational necessity of addressing people's concerns. Running things and debating things are two different activities, and for Stallman those things are currently in conflict. Maybe he's tempermentally incapable of dealing with conflicting imperatives; in any case he seems to have taken the absolute route to resignation.

noobermin 7y ago
I think this is a better argument than merely talking about the content of the speech. That said the question is whether the punishment matches the severity of the crime. There was no due process here so we'll never know for sure.
- differentView 7y ago
  Stallman is all about being technical. Technically, he resigned. So what due process was denied to him?
  - noobermin 7y ago
    He was forced to resign. Holding a gun to one's head and telling them to recite a confession doesn't make it authentic. I don't want to pretend he had no choice in the decision, but to pretend he did if of his own free volition is false.
    - differentView 7y ago
      You mean like how Stallman pretended that the underage girl that was on Epstein's island had sex with Minsky of her own free volition?
      - noobermin 7y ago

CodeCube 7y ago

Do you really think that no one has suffered for having conversations pro gay rights, civil rights, gender equality, and all those other previously inadmissible topics? No, they spoke publicly, and paid the (unfortunate) consequences of the day ... but they carried on because it was the right thing to do. What exactly is it that we're trying to "express ourselves" about here? what "progress" are we trying to make on old men having sex with young girls? If there's change to be made, then someone is going to have to weather the cultural storm that speaking out about it brings in order to bring change. If it's not worth weathering that storm, then maybe it's not worth having that discussion in the first place.

eloff 7y ago
Of course not, it's my position that there shouldn't be such serious consequences for having a dissenting opinion. Minority opinions are in fact the only way we make progress in science our society. Everything accepted now was once a fringe idea. There is a real conversion to be had about our statutory rape laws. They're absurd in some aspects. That's beside the point.
- widowlark 7y ago
  Every minority opinion has paid the price for being one. You have to keep fighting if you believe what you're saying, it's never been easy to make waves and it took at lot to get to this point. However, comments like what Stallman made are nearly indefensible and only lead to people getting removed. In the end, if protecting pedophiles becomes the norm, he will be exonerated as a martyr of the movement.
  - eloff 7y ago
    Are you really saying Minsky is a paedophile? You are exaggerating the situation here unfairly.
    - cygx 7y ago
      Stallman used to argue that 'voluntarily paedophilia' should be decriminalized, cf quotes from 2003 and 2006[1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d59r46/richard_stallman_resigns_from_mit_over_epstein/f0lu3o6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d59r46/richard...

fatbird 7y ago

> Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements. These problematic statements were made in the context of someone who has a long, long history of upsetting, angering and offending people with bad behaviour. People in CSAIL kept plants around them because Stallman hates plants and it functioned like garlic to a vampire. Firing him may be disproportionate to the moment, but it's overdue given the history. The guy who fired him literally said "straw that broke the camel's back."