8 ms·

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

by 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/
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    Assuming good faith, I’m old enough to remember not only 2009, but also the 1990s. This tacky joke wasn’t considered to be in line with the best advice at either time. While you may need to take my word for 1990s, the very fact that there are multiple contemporaneous articles about the inappropriateness of the 2009 skit, is evidence of that. I will concede that the tolerance for the tacky joke may have been a bit higher in 1990, or even 1999, than it was 2009. Also, to reiterate, I do not think that it is RMS’s intention to offend, but offend he none the less does. I am confused by the line of thought about someone that may not have been considered a good feminist in 2009, but in 2019 may be considered a good one. People are always welcome to change and adapt their behaviors and opinions to be more inclusive. Furthermore, it is especially welcome to acknowledge past behavior that doesn’t rise to one’s current standards. That is the expected outcome of education, growth, and maturity. To steadfastly refuse to change behavior when it is brought to their attention that is inappropriate, and perhaps not in line with their professed ideas, seems suspect to me. Is there something I’m missing, or perhaps you accidentally got the years reversed, and I misinterpreted?
    - craigsmansion 7y ago
      Some might have found it funny, others might have found it tacky. It's the way jokes work. Important here is that his is not the first time it happened or where it was used disproportionally against him: https://stallman.org/articles/texas.html https://stallman.org/articles/texas.html From the above, from someone at TI he met later who was amused by his joke: "The plant incident, which I found rather humorous, provided a reason for people in the later camp to become offended. This was convenient as they had been looking for one. They were subsequently able to blow it to suitable proportions to gain the attention of management. " Stallman will always offend people because he speaks about their unethical behaviour. Those offended will use whatever he does as an excuse.
      - jonathankoren 7y ago
        Most people understand the difference between business and professional controversies and those that are demeaning to people based on immutable identity. It is disingenuous to consider all (mis)behavior equal in severity or kind.
roenxi 7y ago
I don't think it is even worth focusing in on specific issues; throwing mud at Stallman's character is post-hoc rationalisation for a situation created by thoughtcrime. Even if the mud sticks, the major problem is that Stallman was forced to resign after what appears to be (from public info) a moral panic. People acting on moral panics is really bad; good process is slow process. There are real complaints about Stallman. There have been since the 90s. If it looked like he was resigning because of those then that would be a totally different kettle of fish.
- toofy 7y ago
  I don’t mean to quibble and I really want to strsss this next point: I’m absolutely as lost as we all seem to be regarding how some people in our communities should be dealt with. I don’t yet know how we’ll choose to handle them. But anyway, using the term “thoughtcrime” feels incredibly disingenuous and could easily be misconstrued as intentionally inflammatory. Obviously you wouldn’t be intentionally inflammatory on HN so Im guessing you’re accidentally using the incorrect term–since most of the accounts we’ve seen are actual actions he has taken, it did not stay inside his mind, it was manifested into actual action in the real world towards other people, this just isn’t “thoughtcrime.” Even the people who were closest to him are very publicly discussing that there were a great many actual real world actions which made them feel everything from uncomfortable to intentionally avoiding him, again, even the people closest to him say these incidents were happening out in the open and happening regular enough to make them uncomfortable even when they weren’t the targets of his behavior. Like I said, I had an immense amount of respect for him, I met him quite a few times, but I’m as lost as we all seem to be on how our communities should deal with folks like this. Either way, let’s at least try our best on HN to not accidentally inflame or accidentally mislead people.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    Thoughtcrime is an apt description for the events that triggered this moral panic.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    "Thoughtcrime" here refers to the mere expression of taboo opinions, independent of a person's actual behavior towards others. It seems to be the case that Stallman did engage in inappropriate behavior - which perhaps should have been dealt with differently by CSAIL, MIT, the FSF board etc. The appropriate response may very well have been to ask for his resignation. But those behaviors are not why he was asked to resign. Reference to his past behavior was a post-hoc rationalization. It seems the real reason he was fired was because he expressed a difference of opinion over the nature of Marvin Minksy's guilt as a result of his association with Epstein. Well, it wasn't even about the opinion he expressed, rather he was fired because someone publicly misinterpreted his opinion, and that mistaken opinion was picked up by the media. Well, it wasn't even about the misinterpreted opinion. He was fired because MIT is (I'm sure) facing some very serious scrutiny over it's entanglements with Epstein, and the very real concern that one of it's famed professors may have been a co-conspirator in a powerful and depraved criminal ring. The whole Stallman affair serves as a nice deflection from that scrutiny. As it stands, it does not even look like Minsky ever participated in said criminal activity (as far as I can tell, the victim only said that she was compelled to offer herself to Minsky, and another witness claimed that Minksy turned her down). While there likely were many powerful people who were knowing participants in Epstein's activities, it seems that Epstein was also someone who liked to befriend very smart STEM folks, and not all of them may have been aware as to what exactly Epstein was involved in.
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
All sensible senior academics keep their doors open. It is one way to avoid exactly these sorts of accusations!
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  if you can be accused for keeping a door closed, US society is way more fucked up than I thought and these people are much more scary than italian mafia.
lostjohnny 7y ago
fun fact: Selam G. the author of the post on medium builds weapons for the US defense department.

by 4bpp 7y ago

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/
- jonathankoren 7y ago
  Assuming good faith, I’m old enough to remember not only 2009, but also the 1990s. This tacky joke wasn’t considered to be in line with the best advice at either time. While you may need to take my word for 1990s, the very fact that there are multiple contemporaneous articles about the inappropriateness of the 2009 skit, is evidence of that. I will concede that the tolerance for the tacky joke may have been a bit higher in 1990, or even 1999, than it was 2009. Also, to reiterate, I do not think that it is RMS’s intention to offend, but offend he none the less does. I am confused by the line of thought about someone that may not have been considered a good feminist in 2009, but in 2019 may be considered a good one. People are always welcome to change and adapt their behaviors and opinions to be more inclusive. Furthermore, it is especially welcome to acknowledge past behavior that doesn’t rise to one’s current standards. That is the expected outcome of education, growth, and maturity. To steadfastly refuse to change behavior when it is brought to their attention that is inappropriate, and perhaps not in line with their professed ideas, seems suspect to me. Is there something I’m missing, or perhaps you accidentally got the years reversed, and I misinterpreted?
  - craigsmansion 7y ago
    Some might have found it funny, others might have found it tacky. It's the way jokes work. Important here is that his is not the first time it happened or where it was used disproportionally against him: https://stallman.org/articles/texas.html https://stallman.org/articles/texas.html From the above, from someone at TI he met later who was amused by his joke: "The plant incident, which I found rather humorous, provided a reason for people in the later camp to become offended. This was convenient as they had been looking for one. They were subsequently able to blow it to suitable proportions to gain the attention of management. " Stallman will always offend people because he speaks about their unethical behaviour. Those offended will use whatever he does as an excuse.
    - jonathankoren 7y ago
      Most people understand the difference between business and professional controversies and those that are demeaning to people based on immutable identity. It is disingenuous to consider all (mis)behavior equal in severity or kind.

roenxi 7y ago

I don't think it is even worth focusing in on specific issues; throwing mud at Stallman's character is post-hoc rationalisation for a situation created by thoughtcrime. Even if the mud sticks, the major problem is that Stallman was forced to resign after what appears to be (from public info) a moral panic. People acting on moral panics is really bad; good process is slow process. There are real complaints about Stallman. There have been since the 90s. If it looked like he was resigning because of those then that would be a totally different kettle of fish.

toofy 7y ago
I don’t mean to quibble and I really want to strsss this next point: I’m absolutely as lost as we all seem to be regarding how some people in our communities should be dealt with. I don’t yet know how we’ll choose to handle them. But anyway, using the term “thoughtcrime” feels incredibly disingenuous and could easily be misconstrued as intentionally inflammatory. Obviously you wouldn’t be intentionally inflammatory on HN so Im guessing you’re accidentally using the incorrect term–since most of the accounts we’ve seen are actual actions he has taken, it did not stay inside his mind, it was manifested into actual action in the real world towards other people, this just isn’t “thoughtcrime.” Even the people who were closest to him are very publicly discussing that there were a great many actual real world actions which made them feel everything from uncomfortable to intentionally avoiding him, again, even the people closest to him say these incidents were happening out in the open and happening regular enough to make them uncomfortable even when they weren’t the targets of his behavior. Like I said, I had an immense amount of respect for him, I met him quite a few times, but I’m as lost as we all seem to be on how our communities should deal with folks like this. Either way, let’s at least try our best on HN to not accidentally inflame or accidentally mislead people.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  Thoughtcrime is an apt description for the events that triggered this moral panic.
- lliamander 7y ago
  "Thoughtcrime" here refers to the mere expression of taboo opinions, independent of a person's actual behavior towards others. It seems to be the case that Stallman did engage in inappropriate behavior - which perhaps should have been dealt with differently by CSAIL, MIT, the FSF board etc. The appropriate response may very well have been to ask for his resignation. But those behaviors are not why he was asked to resign. Reference to his past behavior was a post-hoc rationalization. It seems the real reason he was fired was because he expressed a difference of opinion over the nature of Marvin Minksy's guilt as a result of his association with Epstein. Well, it wasn't even about the opinion he expressed, rather he was fired because someone publicly misinterpreted his opinion, and that mistaken opinion was picked up by the media. Well, it wasn't even about the misinterpreted opinion. He was fired because MIT is (I'm sure) facing some very serious scrutiny over it's entanglements with Epstein, and the very real concern that one of it's famed professors may have been a co-conspirator in a powerful and depraved criminal ring. The whole Stallman affair serves as a nice deflection from that scrutiny. As it stands, it does not even look like Minsky ever participated in said criminal activity (as far as I can tell, the victim only said that she was compelled to offer herself to Minsky, and another witness claimed that Minksy turned her down). While there likely were many powerful people who were knowing participants in Epstein's activities, it seems that Epstein was also someone who liked to befriend very smart STEM folks, and not all of them may have been aware as to what exactly Epstein was involved in.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago

All sensible senior academics keep their doors open. It is one way to avoid exactly these sorts of accusations!

lostjohnny 7y ago
if you can be accused for keeping a door closed, US society is way more fucked up than I thought and these people are much more scary than italian mafia.

lostjohnny 7y ago

fun fact: Selam G. the author of the post on medium builds weapons for the US defense department.