9 ms·

I think everyone should be able to agree that the situation, as it stands, is pretty unfortunate. Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of m

I think everyone should be able to agree that the situation, as it stands, is pretty unfortunate. Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of many members of the community, and it seems unlikely that he will be an effective leader and public face for GNU, as a result. I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to prevent him from airing his personal opinions (contra what many people are claiming in this thread), and there are indeed many people who are open to listening to those opinions -- but whether you think he ought to leave GNU or not, it's unfortunate that he triggers such strong negative reactions from many people. Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep". [1] While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions, as two organizations have done, was the right decision[3], I also believe that that's not really relevant for this particular thread. He founded GNU. He runs GNU. He probably can't be forced by anyone to leave GNU. None of that changes the fact that he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before. [1] https://twitter.com/evacide/status/1172287971220848640 https://twitter.com/evacide/status/1172287971220848640 [2] He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault. [3] Even putting aside the forum in which he made these comments, and the things he has said and done at other times.

nieksand 7y ago
Can you provide an actual link for [2]? It's a very serious allegation.
- bscphil 7y ago
  Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in my comment. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-mit-after-comments-about-epstein-scandal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
  - smsm42 7y ago
    He did not claim that and did not insinuate that. It's like saying that person that doesn't believe we should use term "piracy" to describe copying software without obtaining license, because piracy implies violent robbery, thinks that violating copyright is OK. It's a total non-sequitur and failure of reading comprehension to the point of functional illiteracy.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    So are you saying that somebody who willfully rapes a kid is no worse than somebody who thinks they're enjoying the services of a prostitute? You're a monster.
    - F-0X 7y ago
      That's not what was said _at all_. You simply have not read the post correctly, and worse, your phrasing exaggerates the actual situation.
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        So what are you saying? He agrees with Stallman? That’s even worse!
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as 'entirely willing'.
    - pseudalopex 7y ago
      It is not true where the alleged act took place.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime. But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
- NhanH 7y ago
  He didn't said that. But at this point, I think everyone made up their mind about the reading of the email. Here is the original email thread you can read and decide for yourself https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
- ccalf 7y ago
  There is none; the people who keep promulgating this falsehood about Stallman say that because of one paragraph that anyone who can pass the SAT reading comprehension tests, parse standard English, or understand the basics of logical reasoning, would have understood that it is simply a wrong interpretation at the level of how 1+1 = 3 is wrong. It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point. The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
  - adamsea 7y ago
    So simple that it requires so many words to explain ;)
    - ccalf 7y ago
      Actually, the SAT reading comprehension questions are not that simple and trip people up. Which is really my point of analogy. They're the kind of questions where you either got the right answer or not, but explaining it to the person who got it wrong can be non trivial.
      - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
        Almost an opposite of NP problems. Easy to solve, but hard to convince someone else that your solution is correct.
- josefx 7y ago
  I think this part of his emails could be constructed as that > We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that. Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent. His opinion on the age of consent is another matter: > Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17. Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5 https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5
  - bscphil 7y ago
    This is not the most damning part of the email to me. I excerpted the part I thought most relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394
  - denton-scratch 7y ago
    It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16. I believe RMS is on record saying that he thinks the idea of a legal "age of consent" is a nonsense. It's entirely an arguable position that if two 16-year-olds have sex together, they have not necessarily raped one-another. He's saying that it's not the age that makes it rape, and that therefore the law is an ass. The law effectively defines consent as something that cannot legally be given by someone younger than X. Obviously the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they can give consent; RMS is complaining that the law gives X an arbitrary value. One can disagree with him, either with a proper argument, or simply by denouncing him; but it's not morally reprehensible for him to reason in that way.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16. Even for American's travelling to that country? Even for prostitution?
    - bscphil 7y ago
aortega 7y ago
>Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of many members of the community, He lost or never had the trust of some very small but very vocal group of the community. > EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep". And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? Also, an accusation of "creep" should not be enough to erase all his life's work. What does "creep" means anyway? Asperger? Social inept person? Modern tech were built by creeps. >He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault. He didn't said that. >he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before. Why not? Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists. I don't see why a "creep" will not be effective as a leader.
- bscphil 7y ago
  > And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? I didn't say we should. Though I trust her judgment more than, say, yours (an anonymous person on the Internet). I used it as evidence that Stallman doesn't have the trust of the community. Also "creep" is almost certainly talking about the way he reportedly treats women, nothing to do with his social graces. > He didn't said that. He did say that. I've posted links with evidence of that already in this thread.
  - aortega 7y ago
    > I trust her judgment more than, say, yours Good for you, I don't. I trust Stallman. > I used it as evidence You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence. >the way he reportedly treats women Reported by who? Is there any formal accusation or lawsuit? Did he lost such lawsuit? (because anybody can file a lawsuit).
    - bscphil 7y ago
      > You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence. I used it as evidence of the fact that many prominent members of the community have a negative opinion of Stallman. Not as evidence of anything he has or hasn't done. Please slow down a little and read my comments more carefully.
smsm42 7y ago
[1] Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault. OTOH, calling people "creeps" is totally normal behavior and isn't negative, demeaning and aggressive in any way. If somebody dislikes you, obviously it's your fault. [2] No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
- bscphil 7y ago
  > Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault. Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do. > No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that. He did say that. Find the actual email and read it. No, really, please do it. I'll even link a copy of it for you. https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ He literally did say it.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion. > He did say that. Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault. > He literally did say it. He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.
craigsmansion 7y ago
> Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep" Seems like it's a pastime over at the EFF who can be outraged the most in the vilest manner (senior staff technologist): https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200 https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200 From their home page: "The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation." Maybe it's time to stop supporting the EFF until they decide to re-focus on their core mission instead of being a den of hypocricy.
craigsmansion 7y ago
> have described him as a "creep". "Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is. By that rationale it should be okay for someone to describe her as "hot", and question her professional capacity on that assessment, e.g. "she is way too attractive to be the EFF's director of cybersecurity", that is, casting aspersions because of personal preferences.
- namarie 7y ago
  > "Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is. Not really? Where did you get this definition fron?
denton-scratch 7y ago
"it seems unlikely that he will be an effective leader and public face for GNU" He never has been, if you ask me. The Unix-like operating system he invented is known to the public as "Linux", despite his repeated, loud insistence that it's a misnomer. But hell, GNU is his project; in fact it's him. GNU without RMS is not GNU, it's something else. [1] I don't read twitter, sorry. [2] That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. [3] By "these comments", do you mean his defence of Minsky on the CSAIL mailing list? He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. Read his actual remarks (and read them carefully; he uses precise language). Pay no attention to the way they have been twisted by Vice and TechCrunch - two publishers whose words I will in future be taking with a bushel of salt.
- bscphil 7y ago
  > That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. Please read the thread, including my extensive quotes and links. I'm not making the "distortions" that, say, the Vice article made. In fact, this proves you read my comment too quickly because you assume I did that: >He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. And look at my comment again. I never claimed he did. Vice did. I claimed he did something very specific, which you can find directly and literally in his email. Maybe you don't think he should have been fired over it. That's one thing. But he did say it. Edit: I saw you were downvoted, so I've upvoted you again in the hope you aren't just here to troll. This thread is toxic enough without people getting arbitrarily downvoted, even if their opinions are wrong.

nieksand 7y ago

Can you provide an actual link for [2]? It's a very serious allegation.

bscphil 7y ago
Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in my comment. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-mit-after-comments-about-epstein-scandal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
- smsm42 7y ago
  He did not claim that and did not insinuate that. It's like saying that person that doesn't believe we should use term "piracy" to describe copying software without obtaining license, because piracy implies violent robbery, thinks that violating copyright is OK. It's a total non-sequitur and failure of reading comprehension to the point of functional illiteracy.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  So are you saying that somebody who willfully rapes a kid is no worse than somebody who thinks they're enjoying the services of a prostitute? You're a monster.
  - F-0X 7y ago
    That's not what was said _at all_. You simply have not read the post correctly, and worse, your phrasing exaggerates the actual situation.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      So what are you saying? He agrees with Stallman? That’s even worse!
- zajio1am 7y ago
  Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as 'entirely willing'.
  - pseudalopex 7y ago
    It is not true where the alleged act took place.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime. But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
NhanH 7y ago
He didn't said that. But at this point, I think everyone made up their mind about the reading of the email. Here is the original email thread you can read and decide for yourself https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
ccalf 7y ago
There is none; the people who keep promulgating this falsehood about Stallman say that because of one paragraph that anyone who can pass the SAT reading comprehension tests, parse standard English, or understand the basics of logical reasoning, would have understood that it is simply a wrong interpretation at the level of how 1+1 = 3 is wrong. It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point. The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
- adamsea 7y ago
  So simple that it requires so many words to explain ;)
  - ccalf 7y ago
    Actually, the SAT reading comprehension questions are not that simple and trip people up. Which is really my point of analogy. They're the kind of questions where you either got the right answer or not, but explaining it to the person who got it wrong can be non trivial.
    - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
      Almost an opposite of NP problems. Easy to solve, but hard to convince someone else that your solution is correct.
josefx 7y ago
I think this part of his emails could be constructed as that > We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that. Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent. His opinion on the age of consent is another matter: > Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17. Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5 https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5
- bscphil 7y ago
  This is not the most damning part of the email to me. I excerpted the part I thought most relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394
- denton-scratch 7y ago
  It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16. I believe RMS is on record saying that he thinks the idea of a legal "age of consent" is a nonsense. It's entirely an arguable position that if two 16-year-olds have sex together, they have not necessarily raped one-another. He's saying that it's not the age that makes it rape, and that therefore the law is an ass. The law effectively defines consent as something that cannot legally be given by someone younger than X. Obviously the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they can give consent; RMS is complaining that the law gives X an arbitrary value. One can disagree with him, either with a proper argument, or simply by denouncing him; but it's not morally reprehensible for him to reason in that way.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16. Even for American's travelling to that country? Even for prostitution?
  - bscphil 7y ago

aortega 7y ago

>Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of many members of the community, He lost or never had the trust of some very small but very vocal group of the community. > EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep". And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? Also, an accusation of "creep" should not be enough to erase all his life's work. What does "creep" means anyway? Asperger? Social inept person? Modern tech were built by creeps. >He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault. He didn't said that. >he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before. Why not? Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists. I don't see why a "creep" will not be effective as a leader.

bscphil 7y ago
> And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? I didn't say we should. Though I trust her judgment more than, say, yours (an anonymous person on the Internet). I used it as evidence that Stallman doesn't have the trust of the community. Also "creep" is almost certainly talking about the way he reportedly treats women, nothing to do with his social graces. > He didn't said that. He did say that. I've posted links with evidence of that already in this thread.
- aortega 7y ago
  > I trust her judgment more than, say, yours Good for you, I don't. I trust Stallman. > I used it as evidence You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence. >the way he reportedly treats women Reported by who? Is there any formal accusation or lawsuit? Did he lost such lawsuit? (because anybody can file a lawsuit).
  - bscphil 7y ago
    > You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence. I used it as evidence of the fact that many prominent members of the community have a negative opinion of Stallman. Not as evidence of anything he has or hasn't done. Please slow down a little and read my comments more carefully.

smsm42 7y ago

[1] Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault. OTOH, calling people "creeps" is totally normal behavior and isn't negative, demeaning and aggressive in any way. If somebody dislikes you, obviously it's your fault. [2] No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.

bscphil 7y ago
> Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault. Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do. > No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that. He did say that. Find the actual email and read it. No, really, please do it. I'll even link a copy of it for you. https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ He literally did say it.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion. > He did say that. Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault. > He literally did say it. He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.

craigsmansion 7y ago

> Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep" Seems like it's a pastime over at the EFF who can be outraged the most in the vilest manner (senior staff technologist): https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200 https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200 From their home page: "The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation." Maybe it's time to stop supporting the EFF until they decide to re-focus on their core mission instead of being a den of hypocricy.

craigsmansion 7y ago

> have described him as a "creep". "Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is. By that rationale it should be okay for someone to describe her as "hot", and question her professional capacity on that assessment, e.g. "she is way too attractive to be the EFF's director of cybersecurity", that is, casting aspersions because of personal preferences.

namarie 7y ago
> "Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is. Not really? Where did you get this definition fron?

denton-scratch 7y ago

"it seems unlikely that he will be an effective leader and public face for GNU" He never has been, if you ask me. The Unix-like operating system he invented is known to the public as "Linux", despite his repeated, loud insistence that it's a misnomer. But hell, GNU is his project; in fact it's him. GNU without RMS is not GNU, it's something else. [1] I don't read twitter, sorry. [2] That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. [3] By "these comments", do you mean his defence of Minsky on the CSAIL mailing list? He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. Read his actual remarks (and read them carefully; he uses precise language). Pay no attention to the way they have been twisted by Vice and TechCrunch - two publishers whose words I will in future be taking with a bushel of salt.

bscphil 7y ago
> That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. Please read the thread, including my extensive quotes and links. I'm not making the "distortions" that, say, the Vice article made. In fact, this proves you read my comment too quickly because you assume I did that: >He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. And look at my comment again. I never claimed he did. Vice did. I claimed he did something very specific, which you can find directly and literally in his email. Maybe you don't think he should have been fired over it. That's one thing. But he did say it. Edit: I saw you were downvoted, so I've upvoted you again in the hope you aren't just here to troll. This thread is toxic enough without people getting arbitrarily downvoted, even if their opinions are wrong.