8 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts In any case, RMS effectively got dismissed because of an

by hvis 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts In any case, RMS effectively got dismissed because of an email on a university-internal mailing list where he tried to defend the honor of a dead friend and colleague in a way that seemed appropriate to him at the time. But the wording triggered the attention of some overly sensitive SJW who decided it's a good enough offence to retaliate against using all the social media power that she could muster. The "hot ladies" stuff was tacked on later to try to justify the dismissal, as if it's not just the bad (but loud) media coverage that was the actual reason.

Spivak 7y ago
You're not being very charitable here -- all the stuff that got tacked on was the answer to whether this was an isolated incident or not. Stallman's personal views are something that people involved in Free Software have been trying for years to downplay and sweep under the rug because RMS is Free Software to a large extent and every part of him affects people's image of the surrounding work. I love Free Software and I contribute a lot of code. I hope that RMS the archetype lives on in the mission of the FSF but that the grittier reality fades.
- hvis 7y ago
  What was an isolated incident? Sharing his opinions over email? Certainly not. Of course I'm not being charitable: the armchair warriors have tried (and, to a large extent, succeeded) to destroy the reputation of a man who we all, collectively, owe a lot to. Regarding the views, I hardly think that being picky about the semantics of the word "assault" is significant enough grounds for dismissal, and for the whole media outrage that happened. Nobody really tried "to downplay" his views because they are largely irrelevant to the work that FSF was and is doing. So they stayed as they were: personal views. The most frowned-upon of which he publicly renounced on his personal blog around the time the scandal broke out.
  - komali2 7y ago
    I don't think anybody is interested in "destroying RMS' reputation." I think women are tired of men getting a pass for misogyny simply because they have great contributions. It just doesn't make up for their behavior. If anybody argues that his name should be struck from history, I'll argue against them. But he shouldn't be employed by MIT.
    - hvis 7y ago
      > I don't think anybody is interested in "destroying RMS' reputation." Really? Look at this disgrace: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1177030240951926784 https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1177030240951926784 But this lady has her audience, and she's pushing the right buttons. Personally, I care little what happens at MIT, but when it comes to FSF, this has gone way too far. Fire the whole board because of an email thread? Really?
      - krapp 7y ago
        > Fire the whole board because of an email thread? Really? It's obvious from any charitable reading of that Twitter thread that Sarah Mei's concerns aren't merely "an email thread," absent any other context. If you object to her actual concerns - that the FSF appears unsympathetic to the victims of harassment, unwilling to apologize for Stallman's behavior, and incapable of expressing a plan to move forward with more progressive policies, then say so. But to purposely misconstrue people's motives in an attempt to make their concerns seem absurd is disingenuous. This isn't about the email thread, it's about the culture and attitudes the email thread represents, and how people would rather excuse RMS' bad behavior rather than confront it in any meaningful way, because they care more about protecting Free Software and its Prophet than the effect RMS has on people, and on the reputation of the FSF, however harmful. Part of the reputation that RMS built for himself is as a serial harasser with no grasp of the concept of consent. It's a legitimate concern that the FSF seems unconcerned about addressing that part of his legacy.
        hvis 7y ago
hutzlibu 7y ago
"The "hot ladies" stuff was tacked on later to try to justify the dismissal," Source for that?
- hvis 7y ago
  Such decisions are not done in a day. The original post, with misinterpretations, appeared on Sep 12, and the resignation happened on Sep 16. The extra "revelations" post was also published on Sep 16.
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    Yes, but was the sign there before, or not? Also, as far as I understood it. The latest thing was just the last straw.
    - hvis 7y ago
      The sign was probably there for decades. If it was problematic, I'm sure some of the university staff would have removed it. So which "latest thing" was the last straw and how?
      - hutzlibu 7y ago
        "The "hot ladies" stuff was tacked on later to try to justify the dismissal" "The sign was probably there for decades" How about "sorry for spreading misinformation"? "So which "latest thing" was the last straw and how?" So you did not read the medium blogpost that started this, at all?
        hvis 7y ago
        > How about "sorry for spreading misinformation"? By "stuff" I mean all the subsequent "revelations" about his character. > So you did not read the medium blogpost that started this, at all? So you meant the event where he tried to defend his deceased colleague? That "last straw"? How dare he.

by hvis 7y ago

Spivak 7y ago

You're not being very charitable here -- all the stuff that got tacked on was the answer to whether this was an isolated incident or not. Stallman's personal views are something that people involved in Free Software have been trying for years to downplay and sweep under the rug because RMS is Free Software to a large extent and every part of him affects people's image of the surrounding work. I love Free Software and I contribute a lot of code. I hope that RMS the archetype lives on in the mission of the FSF but that the grittier reality fades.

hvis 7y ago
What was an isolated incident? Sharing his opinions over email? Certainly not. Of course I'm not being charitable: the armchair warriors have tried (and, to a large extent, succeeded) to destroy the reputation of a man who we all, collectively, owe a lot to. Regarding the views, I hardly think that being picky about the semantics of the word "assault" is significant enough grounds for dismissal, and for the whole media outrage that happened. Nobody really tried "to downplay" his views because they are largely irrelevant to the work that FSF was and is doing. So they stayed as they were: personal views. The most frowned-upon of which he publicly renounced on his personal blog around the time the scandal broke out.
- komali2 7y ago
  I don't think anybody is interested in "destroying RMS' reputation." I think women are tired of men getting a pass for misogyny simply because they have great contributions. It just doesn't make up for their behavior. If anybody argues that his name should be struck from history, I'll argue against them. But he shouldn't be employed by MIT.
  - hvis 7y ago
    > I don't think anybody is interested in "destroying RMS' reputation." Really? Look at this disgrace: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1177030240951926784 https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1177030240951926784 But this lady has her audience, and she's pushing the right buttons. Personally, I care little what happens at MIT, but when it comes to FSF, this has gone way too far. Fire the whole board because of an email thread? Really?
    - krapp 7y ago
      > Fire the whole board because of an email thread? Really? It's obvious from any charitable reading of that Twitter thread that Sarah Mei's concerns aren't merely "an email thread," absent any other context. If you object to her actual concerns - that the FSF appears unsympathetic to the victims of harassment, unwilling to apologize for Stallman's behavior, and incapable of expressing a plan to move forward with more progressive policies, then say so. But to purposely misconstrue people's motives in an attempt to make their concerns seem absurd is disingenuous. This isn't about the email thread, it's about the culture and attitudes the email thread represents, and how people would rather excuse RMS' bad behavior rather than confront it in any meaningful way, because they care more about protecting Free Software and its Prophet than the effect RMS has on people, and on the reputation of the FSF, however harmful. Part of the reputation that RMS built for himself is as a serial harasser with no grasp of the concept of consent. It's a legitimate concern that the FSF seems unconcerned about addressing that part of his legacy.
      - hvis 7y ago

hutzlibu 7y ago

"The "hot ladies" stuff was tacked on later to try to justify the dismissal," Source for that?

hvis 7y ago
Such decisions are not done in a day. The original post, with misinterpretations, appeared on Sep 12, and the resignation happened on Sep 16. The extra "revelations" post was also published on Sep 16.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  Yes, but was the sign there before, or not? Also, as far as I understood it. The latest thing was just the last straw.
  - hvis 7y ago
    The sign was probably there for decades. If it was problematic, I'm sure some of the university staff would have removed it. So which "latest thing" was the last straw and how?
    - hutzlibu 7y ago
      "The "hot ladies" stuff was tacked on later to try to justify the dismissal" "The sign was probably there for decades" How about "sorry for spreading misinformation"? "So which "latest thing" was the last straw and how?" So you did not read the medium blogpost that started this, at all?
      - hvis 7y ago
        > How about "sorry for spreading misinformation"? By "stuff" I mean all the subsequent "revelations" about his character. > So you did not read the medium blogpost that started this, at all? So you meant the event where he tried to defend his deceased colleague? That "last straw"? How dare he.