55 ms·

How come none of that came into light before the leak of his emails? This is quite curious, don't you think? I've read the emails and from the looks of it he ju

by Aqua 7y ago

How come none of that came into light before the leak of his emails? This is quite curious, don't you think? I've read the emails and from the looks of it he just says that there's not enough evidence to condemn someone for their alleged misconduct. I'm very skeptical about all these "revelations", this entire thing appears to be media manipulation. I recommend the book "Trust me, I'm lying", it's eye-opening.

thomasz 7y ago
It seems to have been pretty much public knowledge in the circles that interacted with RMS. It's just that nobody cared enough to act.
- passwordreset 7y ago
  I have interacted with RMS. He stayed at a friend's house, and I went to one of his lectures. Though I'm not a friend of the man, I know that what you're saying was not true, at least during the time that me and my friends met with him. This type of rumor mongering is hurtful and should be opposed.
  - lorenzhs 7y ago
    "He didn't harass women during the two days I interacted with him, therefore he has never done so" is not as strong a defense as you seem to think.
    - KSteffensen 7y ago
      "I heard somebody say he harassed women, so he must have done so" is also not as strong an attack as you seem to think.
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      > He didn't harass women during the two days I interacted with him, therefore he has never done so Exactly, he's innocent until proven guilty, like everybody else. You're implying that "I heard from someone that heard it from someone else, that heard it from their dad, that read it on a mailing list, 20 years ago, that he did, therefore ho did"
    - bmsleight_ 7y ago
      When did you stop beating your wife ?
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > It seems seems does not qualify as evidence > circles that interacted with RMS Like Thomas Lord? https://archive.is/7qepC https://archive.is/7qepC
  - jacobush 7y ago
    You don't there is enough mud to go around? MIT can do the Yogi Berra schtick by throwing Stallman out. But if so, it still does not automatically follow that it was the wrong thing to do.
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      > You don't there is enough mud to go around? I think there is only mud, not based on any real issue with what Stallman said or did. > does not automatically follow that it was the wrong thing to do. It does. FSF main goal was freedom and protecting fundamental liberties of each individual Stallman main contribution to FSF was the GPL, a legal framework, FSF main contribution was pro bono legal support defending free software in court. So, yeah, if FSF cannot defend its founder, most popular and most honorable member, it becomes basically useless, it follows it was the wrong thing to do. Their reputation was based on trust, trust has been broken.
tutfbhuf 7y ago
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. - RMS Quote https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... You don't have to trust the media. RMS himself confirms that he was wrong in the past, at least regarding child abuse.
- aeouaoea123123 7y ago
  TBH, the whole LGBT lobby included the pedo lobby back in the days. Why ? Because everything outside married sex was forbidden, so to fight one extreme another built up naturally, it was pretty much creationism (marriage is sacred and non-married sex is sin) vs. evolution (human is an animal like others and non-married sex is fine). RMS just stated the same reason the whole LGBT lobby separated from the pedo lobby: there is evidence that child/adult relation causes significant psychological damage in the vast majority of cases. People who, like me, were born after the sexual liberation, cannot understand why LGBT lobby sided with pedo lobby back in the days, without basic pol sci and historical context.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  You are assuming that Aqua implies that Stallman publishing his personal opinions in his blog was the issue. While this might be true, for me at least the real revelations were posts like https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1173981287037751297 https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1173981287037751297 and https://twitter.com/jilliancyork/status/1173898047878598656 https://twitter.com/jilliancyork/status/1173898047878598656 - which constitute actual unacceptable behaviour but can't easily be verified.
  - virgilp 7y ago
    What is the exact unacceptable behaviour that you linked to? (Sorry, navigating twitter sucks, I honestly am unsure what you're talking about). From the second link I get two things - second-hand tale that "he gets touchy" (hasn't ever happened to her directly I guess? Or we would've known). And first-hand tale that he abused organizers by instructing them how to make tea; she assumes it's because organizers are women, but from what I know RMS would abuse organizers regardless of gender. He was weird and hard to live with, much less please. Yes I can believe that (it's something that Miguel de Icaza apparently complains about). But this is not a crime!

by Aqua 7y ago

thomasz 7y ago

It seems to have been pretty much public knowledge in the circles that interacted with RMS. It's just that nobody cared enough to act.

passwordreset 7y ago
I have interacted with RMS. He stayed at a friend's house, and I went to one of his lectures. Though I'm not a friend of the man, I know that what you're saying was not true, at least during the time that me and my friends met with him. This type of rumor mongering is hurtful and should be opposed.
- lorenzhs 7y ago
  "He didn't harass women during the two days I interacted with him, therefore he has never done so" is not as strong a defense as you seem to think.
  - KSteffensen 7y ago
    "I heard somebody say he harassed women, so he must have done so" is also not as strong an attack as you seem to think.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    > He didn't harass women during the two days I interacted with him, therefore he has never done so Exactly, he's innocent until proven guilty, like everybody else. You're implying that "I heard from someone that heard it from someone else, that heard it from their dad, that read it on a mailing list, 20 years ago, that he did, therefore ho did"
  - bmsleight_ 7y ago
    When did you stop beating your wife ?
lostjohnny 7y ago
> It seems seems does not qualify as evidence > circles that interacted with RMS Like Thomas Lord? https://archive.is/7qepC https://archive.is/7qepC
- jacobush 7y ago
  You don't there is enough mud to go around? MIT can do the Yogi Berra schtick by throwing Stallman out. But if so, it still does not automatically follow that it was the wrong thing to do.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    > You don't there is enough mud to go around? I think there is only mud, not based on any real issue with what Stallman said or did. > does not automatically follow that it was the wrong thing to do. It does. FSF main goal was freedom and protecting fundamental liberties of each individual Stallman main contribution to FSF was the GPL, a legal framework, FSF main contribution was pro bono legal support defending free software in court. So, yeah, if FSF cannot defend its founder, most popular and most honorable member, it becomes basically useless, it follows it was the wrong thing to do. Their reputation was based on trust, trust has been broken.

tutfbhuf 7y ago

> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. - RMS Quote https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... You don't have to trust the media. RMS himself confirms that he was wrong in the past, at least regarding child abuse.

aeouaoea123123 7y ago
TBH, the whole LGBT lobby included the pedo lobby back in the days. Why ? Because everything outside married sex was forbidden, so to fight one extreme another built up naturally, it was pretty much creationism (marriage is sacred and non-married sex is sin) vs. evolution (human is an animal like others and non-married sex is fine). RMS just stated the same reason the whole LGBT lobby separated from the pedo lobby: there is evidence that child/adult relation causes significant psychological damage in the vast majority of cases. People who, like me, were born after the sexual liberation, cannot understand why LGBT lobby sided with pedo lobby back in the days, without basic pol sci and historical context.
dependenttypes 7y ago
You are assuming that Aqua implies that Stallman publishing his personal opinions in his blog was the issue. While this might be true, for me at least the real revelations were posts like https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1173981287037751297 https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1173981287037751297 and https://twitter.com/jilliancyork/status/1173898047878598656 https://twitter.com/jilliancyork/status/1173898047878598656 - which constitute actual unacceptable behaviour but can't easily be verified.
- virgilp 7y ago
  What is the exact unacceptable behaviour that you linked to? (Sorry, navigating twitter sucks, I honestly am unsure what you're talking about). From the second link I get two things - second-hand tale that "he gets touchy" (hasn't ever happened to her directly I guess? Or we would've known). And first-hand tale that he abused organizers by instructing them how to make tea; she assumes it's because organizers are women, but from what I know RMS would abuse organizers regardless of gender. He was weird and hard to live with, much less please. Yes I can believe that (it's something that Miguel de Icaza apparently complains about). But this is not a crime!