10 ms·

The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior, not just once but repeatedly, over the cours

by Frondo 7y ago

The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior, not just once but repeatedly, over the course of decades. This was the one that disturbed me the most: "Going to an RMS talk in the early 90s and meeting with him in person was among the worst of my experienced - I was fifteen, still obviously underage, and skipping gym class to hear him speak at a professional conference (that I'd snuck into). He actually pointed to me in the back and proclaimed, into the mic, "A GIRL!" causing the audience to turn and look. Mortifying. Then he proceeded to gesture toward me every time he referred to "EMACS Virgins." (I cannot believe that he is still doing the same talk 10+ years later.) I was young and terrified of calling out someone that I'd previously idolized." Did he commit a crime? No. Should we overlook it, and should he remain in a leadership position at a prestigious organization? I can't imagine so; what kind of message does that send? Anecdote from: https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Experiences https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Experiences

quickthrower2 7y ago
Wow. Terrible. Hope she wasn't put off computer science / IT by that.
zapzupnz 7y ago
> The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior, not just once but repeatedly, over the course of decades Indeed. A lot of people leaping to his defence have only a very surface-level understanding of his past record and think the accusations are something new or recent. Nobody expects the people who change the world to be perfect, but it really doesn't do to defend people based purely on their reputation. It's unjust to let influential people off the hook just because they're influential. Please note: I'm not pronouncing any opinion on whether his condemnation and dismissal are justified.
- lliamander 7y ago
  I'm sure not all are aware of his history of inappropriate behavior, but some of us are. I think those of us who are bothered by his ousting are bothered for two reasons: 1. The triggering event was someone misquoting him and the media running with that misquote 2. The timing and manner in which MIT handled the situations suggests that they were hypocritically trying to deflect from their own complicity in the Epstein scandal, rather than addressing Stallman's behavior in good faith. 3. While Stallman certainly benefited from some protection for his behavior, the organizations which supported him also greatly benefited from him. The FSF saying that Stallman does not speak for them is particularly rich, considering they exist to promote his ideas. I'm not saying I care for his behavior, or that all of it should get a pass. There's also a lot that I just don't agree with him about. However: 1. I don't like seeing the media twist people's words 2. I don't like seeing organizations throw people under the bus during moral panics Also, I fear that it's becoming harder to be a weird nerd in tech[1]. [1]https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c
  - zapzupnz 7y ago
    See, that's sounds like a fair rebuttal to the situation to me, though I'm not sure that point 3 really stands — who benefits from whom makes no difference to the matter in question, exaggerated though it is. Point 2 is quite strong, though I wonder if they might also have been looking for an excuse to good rid of him for some time? I'm not suggesting that's true at all, that's just musing based on some recent politics at the place I work.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      Regarding point 3 - I think that even if you have to cut ties with someone because of their transgressions, if they did a lot of good then it is still appropriate to have some gratitude for that good. From what I recall of the FSF statement about RMS, I did not see any of that there.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Also, I fear that it's becoming harder to be a weird nerd in tech[1]. The thing is, tech can embrace "weirdness" without also embracing sexual harassment, hostility and toxicity. Not every behavior that deviates from the "politically correct" norm needs to be worn as a badge of honor and celebrated as cultural quirkiness by tech people.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      I'm not saying that tech should embrace "sexual harassment, hostility and toxicity" (though I do think we should be careful how we define such terms). I said I didn't think his behavior should get a pass, and elsewhere in this thread I acknowledge that asking for his resignation may even be the correct response to his past behavior. My point is that it wasn't his past behavior that lead to his forced resignation. If it had been (as is my understanding of what happened with Kalanick at Uber) I would not be so concerned.
      - krapp 7y ago
        >My point is that it wasn't his past behavior that lead to his forced resignation. Maybe not directly, but I think it certainly added weight to the scales that tipped against his favor. At the very least, Stallman's present behavior is the product of his past behavior.
michannne 7y ago
If I had a de-platformed individual every time they made a comment someone took offense to, I'd end up with an animal farm. Definitely, his comments should not be overlooked, but intellectually benching someone because of what they've said is not how you handle these types of situations. Furthermore, his leadership qualities depend only on his ability to lead a group towards a goal, which he was doing swell at.
- schwartzworld 7y ago
  Or maybe people would just be more cautious about saying horrible things on the record.
  - michannne 7y ago
    "Horrible" is completely subjective.
    - egdod 7y ago
      "Horrible" is sometimes subjective. There are things that pretty much every reasonable person would agree are horrible.
      - ben509 7y ago
        > pretty much every reasonable person Reasonable is subjective.
        egdod 7y ago
        No, it isn’t. The “reasonable person” standard in lots of laws exists exactly because we can agree on it as an objective standard.
        ben509 7y ago
        We don't agree what it actually is, though. In practice, the "reasonable person" standard is achieved by asking a jury. In a jury, the members apply their life experiences to the case they're deciding and then persuade each other to reach a unanimous conclusion. That's an entirely subjective process, and if you repeat it with another jury you can get the polar opposite answer.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Stratoscope 7y ago
Same thing ten years ago. I had lunch with a young lady who was maintainer of a popular GNU project, and much of the conversation revolved around the creepy advances RMS had made toward her. She was older than the 15 year old you quoted, and I think she knew how to take care of herself. But obviously his behavior had caused her quite a bit of discomfort.
4bpp 7y ago
It's notable that all of these anecdotes are from back in the '90s and before; since I assume Stallman's accusers dug around very hard for material and this is the best they could find, it stands to reason that he probably has long since improved in that regard. Moreover, the same cluster of people among others has seriously been arguing (https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...) that a mattress in the office of someone whose every public profile involves a mention of how he slept in the office for years to develop GNU is unambiguous sexual innuendo (quote: "He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it."). I am not sure how trustworthy their accounts can be considered to begin with.
- jonathankoren 7y ago
  The contemporary misinterpretation of the mattress aside, RMS already had already earned his reputation in the 90s, as had at least one other OSS luminary of the time. Case in point: RMS's incredibly uncomfortable St iGNUcius routine was already legendary.[0] Does he intend for it to be awkward at best, and offensive at worst? I doubt it. Has people told him that it is not received as he intends? Definitely. Does he change his behavior to better reflect his purported views of inclusiveness? Nope. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you intend your actions to be interpreted, it only matters how they actually are interpreted. That failure to adapt to clear feedback, is problem. [0] From 2009 https://mjg59.livejournal.com/113408.html https://mjg59.livejournal.com/113408.html
  - 4bpp 7y ago
    I do not think that a tacky joke about "emacs virgins" as part of a comedy routine parodying real religious movements past and present deserves being treated as a punishable offense at all. Not only do I think that this should not be objectionable and those who try to make it out to be are contributing to our society being a worse place than it has to be, calls for punishment on the basis of it also strike me as plainly hypocritical in an age where beloved and respected media and tech figures can use the sexual history of members of their political outgroup as an insult ("incel", "cuck") and are applauded for it. Long before the current iteration of our dominant ideology, people talked about the slut-versus-stud distinction[1] as one of the ways in which sexism manifests itself in our society. It seems to me that both the circumstance that we would find Stallman joking about female sexual inexperience intrinsically scandalous, and the circumstance that we find $twitterpersonality taking actual malicious shots at male sexual inexperience okay, would serve to reinforce this double standard, not combat it. Consider the possibility that at the very least, the people who are now actually interpreting Stallman's remark as offensive may at least not have been considered good feminists back in 2009, when mjg59's post and my citation were written. Should we fault Stallman for acting ineptly but ultimately in line with what was probably the "best" advice at the time? [1] https://www.gender-focus.com/2009/11/22/slut-vs-stud/ https://www.gender-focus.com/2009/11/22/slut-vs-stud/
cat_plus_plus 7y ago
Are you actually kidding me? As you are nearing adulthood as a teenager, you are sometimes able to sneak into adult spaces and experience a bit of adult off-color talk. Not everything is guarded by a fence, but maybe more tech events should be if the alternative is catering to child sensitivities. In any case, these comments would not even be PG-13 in a Disney movie. Also, if the idea is to protect under-18s from any minor adult banter, how come 6th grade has an LGBTQ club? "was among the worst of my experienced" alone suggests that the author had an incredibly sheltered and privileged life. Expecting every minor offense to be handled by ruining offender's life is not a healthy attitude in life, hope she grew out of that eventually?
- inimino 7y ago
  > incredibly sheltered. > privileged I'm coming to realize more and more—those aren't the same thing.
  - dspillett 7y ago
    The latter often results in the former, and sometimes the former illicits expectations of the latter in the sheltered, so there is significant coincidence of the two, but no they are certainly not the same nor do they necessarily imply each other.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  > Also, if the idea is to protect under-18s from any minor adult banter, how come 6th grade has an LGBTQ club? What do these have to do with each other? Nothing about an LGBTQ club has to be "adult".
- akdas 7y ago
  Maybe I'm reading the GP's anecdote incorrectly, but the behavior in question seemed like targeted harassment, not just "a bit of adult off-color talk".
  - cat_plus_plus 7y ago
    People are throwing these words around so much they lost all the real meaning. Harassment is someone seriously interfering in your life. Bad jokes during a public talk where you are obviously safe from unwanted advances does not qualify. Neither is Joe Biden anything. Al Franken maybe deserved a slap on the face or some other minor consequences around the time things happened (if they did as alleged) but not an unpersoning. The most easily offended person in the society does not get to be a unilateral tyrant over all functional adults with normal offense thresholds.
lostjohnny 7y ago
> The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior Who are you exactly to think you can decide what is - without doubt - "entirely inappropriate behaviour"? are you in charge of the thought police?
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Sorry, I’m not understanding. Is inappropriate actions a thoughtcrime? Like. I thought thoughtcrime and actions are separate- you can think about how women are just pieces of meat all you like, once you start treating them as pieces of meat then you’ve moved from thinking (thoughtcrime) to action (serial killer)? (Edit; to be clear, since this was a point of confusion, I do not believe anyone I am responding to thinks women are meat! This is a rhetorical tactic to use as an example.)
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    You're not in charge of deciding what's inappropriate or not. Talking about dicks is inappropriate, but if you are an urologist speaking with other urolgy students, it makes perfect sense. Stallman was writing to other students about the correct representation of the Minsky situation, because they were using Minsky's name in an inappropriate way to protest against MIT-Epstein case. (Unless you think that accusing a dead person without proof is alright) His entire life has been devoted to finding the precise combinations of words to express what he wanted to say, in the most exact possible manner. Can you blame him for doing what he did best, among his peers? I blame the weapon builder who felt triggered and accused him of something he did not do. > you can think about how women are just pieces of meat all you like Pathetic... Nobody ever said that. You're embarrassing yourself.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      Sorry, I should’ve clarified that this is a rhetorical you! My apologies for not being clear; I was under the impression that the structure of my post would’ve implied as such. Sorry for the offense I’ve caused. As for the rest of it- well, the post questioning thoughtcrime wasn’t about the individual email defense of a friend at all, but about the decades of complaints! So, again, totally out of context there. Can you re-respond with relevant conjecture?

by Frondo 7y ago

quickthrower2 7y ago

Wow. Terrible. Hope she wasn't put off computer science / IT by that.

zapzupnz 7y ago

> The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior, not just once but repeatedly, over the course of decades Indeed. A lot of people leaping to his defence have only a very surface-level understanding of his past record and think the accusations are something new or recent. Nobody expects the people who change the world to be perfect, but it really doesn't do to defend people based purely on their reputation. It's unjust to let influential people off the hook just because they're influential. Please note: I'm not pronouncing any opinion on whether his condemnation and dismissal are justified.

lliamander 7y ago
I'm sure not all are aware of his history of inappropriate behavior, but some of us are. I think those of us who are bothered by his ousting are bothered for two reasons: 1. The triggering event was someone misquoting him and the media running with that misquote 2. The timing and manner in which MIT handled the situations suggests that they were hypocritically trying to deflect from their own complicity in the Epstein scandal, rather than addressing Stallman's behavior in good faith. 3. While Stallman certainly benefited from some protection for his behavior, the organizations which supported him also greatly benefited from him. The FSF saying that Stallman does not speak for them is particularly rich, considering they exist to promote his ideas. I'm not saying I care for his behavior, or that all of it should get a pass. There's also a lot that I just don't agree with him about. However: 1. I don't like seeing the media twist people's words 2. I don't like seeing organizations throw people under the bus during moral panics Also, I fear that it's becoming harder to be a weird nerd in tech[1]. [1]https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c
- zapzupnz 7y ago
  See, that's sounds like a fair rebuttal to the situation to me, though I'm not sure that point 3 really stands — who benefits from whom makes no difference to the matter in question, exaggerated though it is. Point 2 is quite strong, though I wonder if they might also have been looking for an excuse to good rid of him for some time? I'm not suggesting that's true at all, that's just musing based on some recent politics at the place I work.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Regarding point 3 - I think that even if you have to cut ties with someone because of their transgressions, if they did a lot of good then it is still appropriate to have some gratitude for that good. From what I recall of the FSF statement about RMS, I did not see any of that there.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Also, I fear that it's becoming harder to be a weird nerd in tech[1]. The thing is, tech can embrace "weirdness" without also embracing sexual harassment, hostility and toxicity. Not every behavior that deviates from the "politically correct" norm needs to be worn as a badge of honor and celebrated as cultural quirkiness by tech people.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    I'm not saying that tech should embrace "sexual harassment, hostility and toxicity" (though I do think we should be careful how we define such terms). I said I didn't think his behavior should get a pass, and elsewhere in this thread I acknowledge that asking for his resignation may even be the correct response to his past behavior. My point is that it wasn't his past behavior that lead to his forced resignation. If it had been (as is my understanding of what happened with Kalanick at Uber) I would not be so concerned.
    - krapp 7y ago
      >My point is that it wasn't his past behavior that lead to his forced resignation. Maybe not directly, but I think it certainly added weight to the scales that tipped against his favor. At the very least, Stallman's present behavior is the product of his past behavior.

michannne 7y ago

If I had a de-platformed individual every time they made a comment someone took offense to, I'd end up with an animal farm. Definitely, his comments should not be overlooked, but intellectually benching someone because of what they've said is not how you handle these types of situations. Furthermore, his leadership qualities depend only on his ability to lead a group towards a goal, which he was doing swell at.

schwartzworld 7y ago
Or maybe people would just be more cautious about saying horrible things on the record.
- michannne 7y ago
  "Horrible" is completely subjective.
  - egdod 7y ago
    "Horrible" is sometimes subjective. There are things that pretty much every reasonable person would agree are horrible.
    - ben509 7y ago
      > pretty much every reasonable person Reasonable is subjective.
      - egdod 7y ago
        No, it isn’t. The “reasonable person” standard in lots of laws exists exactly because we can agree on it as an objective standard.
        ben509 7y ago
        We don't agree what it actually is, though. In practice, the "reasonable person" standard is achieved by asking a jury. In a jury, the members apply their life experiences to the case they're deciding and then persuade each other to reach a unanimous conclusion. That's an entirely subjective process, and if you repeat it with another jury you can get the polar opposite answer.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Stratoscope 7y ago

Same thing ten years ago. I had lunch with a young lady who was maintainer of a popular GNU project, and much of the conversation revolved around the creepy advances RMS had made toward her. She was older than the 15 year old you quoted, and I think she knew how to take care of herself. But obviously his behavior had caused her quite a bit of discomfort.

4bpp 7y ago

It's notable that all of these anecdotes are from back in the '90s and before; since I assume Stallman's accusers dug around very hard for material and this is the best they could find, it stands to reason that he probably has long since improved in that regard. Moreover, the same cluster of people among others has seriously been arguing (https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...) that a mattress in the office of someone whose every public profile involves a mention of how he slept in the office for years to develop GNU is unambiguous sexual innuendo (quote: "He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it."). I am not sure how trustworthy their accounts can be considered to begin with.

jonathankoren 7y ago
The contemporary misinterpretation of the mattress aside, RMS already had already earned his reputation in the 90s, as had at least one other OSS luminary of the time. Case in point: RMS's incredibly uncomfortable St iGNUcius routine was already legendary.[0] Does he intend for it to be awkward at best, and offensive at worst? I doubt it. Has people told him that it is not received as he intends? Definitely. Does he change his behavior to better reflect his purported views of inclusiveness? Nope. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you intend your actions to be interpreted, it only matters how they actually are interpreted. That failure to adapt to clear feedback, is problem. [0] From 2009 https://mjg59.livejournal.com/113408.html https://mjg59.livejournal.com/113408.html
- 4bpp 7y ago
  I do not think that a tacky joke about "emacs virgins" as part of a comedy routine parodying real religious movements past and present deserves being treated as a punishable offense at all. Not only do I think that this should not be objectionable and those who try to make it out to be are contributing to our society being a worse place than it has to be, calls for punishment on the basis of it also strike me as plainly hypocritical in an age where beloved and respected media and tech figures can use the sexual history of members of their political outgroup as an insult ("incel", "cuck") and are applauded for it. Long before the current iteration of our dominant ideology, people talked about the slut-versus-stud distinction[1] as one of the ways in which sexism manifests itself in our society. It seems to me that both the circumstance that we would find Stallman joking about female sexual inexperience intrinsically scandalous, and the circumstance that we find $twitterpersonality taking actual malicious shots at male sexual inexperience okay, would serve to reinforce this double standard, not combat it. Consider the possibility that at the very least, the people who are now actually interpreting Stallman's remark as offensive may at least not have been considered good feminists back in 2009, when mjg59's post and my citation were written. Should we fault Stallman for acting ineptly but ultimately in line with what was probably the "best" advice at the time? [1] https://www.gender-focus.com/2009/11/22/slut-vs-stud/ https://www.gender-focus.com/2009/11/22/slut-vs-stud/

cat_plus_plus 7y ago

Are you actually kidding me? As you are nearing adulthood as a teenager, you are sometimes able to sneak into adult spaces and experience a bit of adult off-color talk. Not everything is guarded by a fence, but maybe more tech events should be if the alternative is catering to child sensitivities. In any case, these comments would not even be PG-13 in a Disney movie. Also, if the idea is to protect under-18s from any minor adult banter, how come 6th grade has an LGBTQ club? "was among the worst of my experienced" alone suggests that the author had an incredibly sheltered and privileged life. Expecting every minor offense to be handled by ruining offender's life is not a healthy attitude in life, hope she grew out of that eventually?

inimino 7y ago
> incredibly sheltered. > privileged I'm coming to realize more and more—those aren't the same thing.
- dspillett 7y ago
  The latter often results in the former, and sometimes the former illicits expectations of the latter in the sheltered, so there is significant coincidence of the two, but no they are certainly not the same nor do they necessarily imply each other.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
> Also, if the idea is to protect under-18s from any minor adult banter, how come 6th grade has an LGBTQ club? What do these have to do with each other? Nothing about an LGBTQ club has to be "adult".
akdas 7y ago
Maybe I'm reading the GP's anecdote incorrectly, but the behavior in question seemed like targeted harassment, not just "a bit of adult off-color talk".
- cat_plus_plus 7y ago
  People are throwing these words around so much they lost all the real meaning. Harassment is someone seriously interfering in your life. Bad jokes during a public talk where you are obviously safe from unwanted advances does not qualify. Neither is Joe Biden anything. Al Franken maybe deserved a slap on the face or some other minor consequences around the time things happened (if they did as alleged) but not an unpersoning. The most easily offended person in the society does not get to be a unilateral tyrant over all functional adults with normal offense thresholds.

lostjohnny 7y ago

> The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior Who are you exactly to think you can decide what is - without doubt - "entirely inappropriate behaviour"? are you in charge of the thought police?

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Sorry, I’m not understanding. Is inappropriate actions a thoughtcrime? Like. I thought thoughtcrime and actions are separate- you can think about how women are just pieces of meat all you like, once you start treating them as pieces of meat then you’ve moved from thinking (thoughtcrime) to action (serial killer)? (Edit; to be clear, since this was a point of confusion, I do not believe anyone I am responding to thinks women are meat! This is a rhetorical tactic to use as an example.)
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  You're not in charge of deciding what's inappropriate or not. Talking about dicks is inappropriate, but if you are an urologist speaking with other urolgy students, it makes perfect sense. Stallman was writing to other students about the correct representation of the Minsky situation, because they were using Minsky's name in an inappropriate way to protest against MIT-Epstein case. (Unless you think that accusing a dead person without proof is alright) His entire life has been devoted to finding the precise combinations of words to express what he wanted to say, in the most exact possible manner. Can you blame him for doing what he did best, among his peers? I blame the weapon builder who felt triggered and accused him of something he did not do. > you can think about how women are just pieces of meat all you like Pathetic... Nobody ever said that. You're embarrassing yourself.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Sorry, I should’ve clarified that this is a rhetorical you! My apologies for not being clear; I was under the impression that the structure of my post would’ve implied as such. Sorry for the offense I’ve caused. As for the rest of it- well, the post questioning thoughtcrime wasn’t about the individual email defense of a friend at all, but about the decades of complaints! So, again, totally out of context there. Can you re-respond with relevant conjecture?