4 ms·

You assemble the evidence before as impartial a committee as you can, and you let them make the decision. I think in this case Stallman is an offensive persona

You assemble the evidence before as impartial a committee as you can, and you let them make the decision. I think in this case Stallman is an offensive personality who says offensive things on company time using company equipment. That's going to be a no-brainer. That said, I have a nagging worry from watching some videos of his behavior that he is mentally ill and there might be a backlash from that. But why we can't allow a process like that to transpire before passing judgment is beyond me. Why wishing such an impartial judgment upon him is downvote worthy is really worrisome to me. That's not what western democracies are about as I understood them up to now. I Just do not believe we should make career-ending decisions like this based on the rage of a mob on social media, that's literally a Black Mirror episode (and a really bad episode of The Orville as well). I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire. Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well?

widowlark 7y ago
There has never been 'due process' when it comes to a private companies decisions regarding hiring or firing. Should we trust the government to make that decision for a private organization?
- oneshot908 7y ago
  That's one of the purposes of HR. Watch any corporate harassment training video if you don't believe me. TLDR: the accusation of harassment is 100% determined by the accuser. The determination of whether harassment occurred OTOH is decided by HR after judging the merits (or lack thereof) of the case. I see no reason why MIT shouldn't have proceeded similarly. And while you might argue that's not 100% impartial, that's a lot better than a Twitter mob (to me at least). Given the piles of video and text of Stallman being Stallman, and the "Hot Ladies" bit on his office door, do you really think they would have high-fived his conduct and told him to carry on? I'm cynical, but I'm not that cynical. Or let's put this another way. The Unabomber and Charles Manson got their due process. Are you saying Stallman is worse than both of them? So I'm guessing you guys downvoting me no longer believe in our legal system? That'll end well I'm sure.
  - amyjess 7y ago
    His sexually-inappropriate behavior towards women has been well-known for years. MIT has chosen to not do anything about it. The truth is that if HR thinks they can sweep something under the table to protect their superstars, they will. https://twitter.com/corbett/status/994012399656042496 https://twitter.com/corbett/status/994012399656042496 https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 https://twitter.com/wiredferret/status/1173042834179534849 https://twitter.com/wiredferret/status/1173042834179534849 https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stallman_resigns_after_defending_pedophilia/f0lip8b/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal... https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stallman_resigns_after_defending_pedophilia/f0lpbjz/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal... https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stallman_resigns_after_defending_pedophilia/f0m483d/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal... When it's this widely known that he likes to creep on women, the only thing that makes sense is that HR has had plugs in their ears the whole time.
    - oneshot908 7y ago
      That business card is wildly inappropriate I agree and I love the bit about the plants. Is there a story I'm missing here where complaints were filed and nothing was done? That would change my viewpoint 180 degrees here if so. Because that means the guy's behavior was repeatedly and officially pointed out to him and he IDGAFed the advice. It also seems like an even bigger story than Stallman himself on par with GOOG's behavior the past 5 years. PS The Kelsey Merkley talk is fantastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y0FuH5FNCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y0FuH5FNCo
joshuamorton 7y ago
> Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well? No. But I do think you're not really looking at this situation objectively. Here's what you've said: 1. It's clear that an objective board should have fired RMS 2. We shouldn't make these decisions based on mobs Additionally, we know he was fired. With that information, you can't make any conclusions. How and why are you so certain that some board didn't weigh the evidence and pass objective judgement? The problem with this fear of "cancel culture" (which as others have mentioned is really just "holding powerful people accountable when they do bad things culture"), is that so far I haven't seen any evidence that the bad things people fear have happened. RMS did a bad thing. He faced consequences for a thing that even you agree was a bad thing. Your only concern is that it is possible, not even certain, that the method by which he faced consequences for an action that we both agree was bad and deserved consequences might have not have been up to a standard that few employees anywhere get. I want to stress that last bit: very few employees are afforded the privilege of an impartial committee to decide whether or not they should be fired in any circumstances. You're arguing that RMS should get a stronger protection than your average employee (either that or that workers should, in general, have much, much stronger protections than we currently give them). tl;dr: > I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire. To me, this looks like exactly what happened. Why are you complaining?
- oneshot908 7y ago
  I think your understanding of the tech industry is rather unlike mine. I have been a manager previously and there is quite a bit of documentation and process involved in terminating anyone, so much so that a lot of really bad apples can jump teams without getting terminated if they time it well. Even when they're caught, they get put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which is shorthand for giving them 60 days to find a new job or to turn their life around internally. Usually, it leads to the former, sometimes the latter. I've seen both. It's an imperfect and biased process. But the attempt is usually made because HR fears unjustified termination lawsuits despite the "at will" employee status of just about everyone. Unless they've tried to hack the company's servers for private data, I've never seen anyone fired on the spot without the above process unfolding. Maybe your experience differs? PS I also think Charles Manson and The Unabomber were unambiguously guilty. That doesn't change my opinion that they deserved the trial they got. PPS If as amyjess seemingly suggests that female professors at MIT repeatedly filed complaints against him and nothing happened, well then carry on Twitter mob, good job, seriously.

widowlark 7y ago

There has never been 'due process' when it comes to a private companies decisions regarding hiring or firing. Should we trust the government to make that decision for a private organization?

oneshot908 7y ago
That's one of the purposes of HR. Watch any corporate harassment training video if you don't believe me. TLDR: the accusation of harassment is 100% determined by the accuser. The determination of whether harassment occurred OTOH is decided by HR after judging the merits (or lack thereof) of the case. I see no reason why MIT shouldn't have proceeded similarly. And while you might argue that's not 100% impartial, that's a lot better than a Twitter mob (to me at least). Given the piles of video and text of Stallman being Stallman, and the "Hot Ladies" bit on his office door, do you really think they would have high-fived his conduct and told him to carry on? I'm cynical, but I'm not that cynical. Or let's put this another way. The Unabomber and Charles Manson got their due process. Are you saying Stallman is worse than both of them? So I'm guessing you guys downvoting me no longer believe in our legal system? That'll end well I'm sure.
- amyjess 7y ago
  His sexually-inappropriate behavior towards women has been well-known for years. MIT has chosen to not do anything about it. The truth is that if HR thinks they can sweep something under the table to protect their superstars, they will. https://twitter.com/corbett/status/994012399656042496 https://twitter.com/corbett/status/994012399656042496 https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 https://twitter.com/wiredferret/status/1173042834179534849 https://twitter.com/wiredferret/status/1173042834179534849 https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stallman_resigns_after_defending_pedophilia/f0lip8b/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal... https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stallman_resigns_after_defending_pedophilia/f0lpbjz/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal... https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stallman_resigns_after_defending_pedophilia/f0m483d/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal... When it's this widely known that he likes to creep on women, the only thing that makes sense is that HR has had plugs in their ears the whole time.
  - oneshot908 7y ago
    That business card is wildly inappropriate I agree and I love the bit about the plants. Is there a story I'm missing here where complaints were filed and nothing was done? That would change my viewpoint 180 degrees here if so. Because that means the guy's behavior was repeatedly and officially pointed out to him and he IDGAFed the advice. It also seems like an even bigger story than Stallman himself on par with GOOG's behavior the past 5 years. PS The Kelsey Merkley talk is fantastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y0FuH5FNCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y0FuH5FNCo

joshuamorton 7y ago

> Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well? No. But I do think you're not really looking at this situation objectively. Here's what you've said: 1. It's clear that an objective board should have fired RMS 2. We shouldn't make these decisions based on mobs Additionally, we know he was fired. With that information, you can't make any conclusions. How and why are you so certain that some board didn't weigh the evidence and pass objective judgement? The problem with this fear of "cancel culture" (which as others have mentioned is really just "holding powerful people accountable when they do bad things culture"), is that so far I haven't seen any evidence that the bad things people fear have happened. RMS did a bad thing. He faced consequences for a thing that even you agree was a bad thing. Your only concern is that it is possible, not even certain, that the method by which he faced consequences for an action that we both agree was bad and deserved consequences might have not have been up to a standard that few employees anywhere get. I want to stress that last bit: very few employees are afforded the privilege of an impartial committee to decide whether or not they should be fired in any circumstances. You're arguing that RMS should get a stronger protection than your average employee (either that or that workers should, in general, have much, much stronger protections than we currently give them). tl;dr: > I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire. To me, this looks like exactly what happened. Why are you complaining?

oneshot908 7y ago
I think your understanding of the tech industry is rather unlike mine. I have been a manager previously and there is quite a bit of documentation and process involved in terminating anyone, so much so that a lot of really bad apples can jump teams without getting terminated if they time it well. Even when they're caught, they get put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which is shorthand for giving them 60 days to find a new job or to turn their life around internally. Usually, it leads to the former, sometimes the latter. I've seen both. It's an imperfect and biased process. But the attempt is usually made because HR fears unjustified termination lawsuits despite the "at will" employee status of just about everyone. Unless they've tried to hack the company's servers for private data, I've never seen anyone fired on the spot without the above process unfolding. Maybe your experience differs? PS I also think Charles Manson and The Unabomber were unambiguously guilty. That doesn't change my opinion that they deserved the trial they got. PPS If as amyjess seemingly suggests that female professors at MIT repeatedly filed complaints against him and nothing happened, well then carry on Twitter mob, good job, seriously.