69 ms·

Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

511 points by lelf 7y ago

draw_down 7y ago
Come on.
menotyou43 7y ago
Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: > “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” > “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realise they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.” RMS isn't being "vilified," he's facing proper judgment for the stupid, ignorant, and disgusting things he's said.
- deogeo 7y ago
  He made some questionable comments, but the media did also lie - documented here: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
- topmonk 7y ago
  >> Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him > Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: Do you know him? Aren't you vilifying him? Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" of being constantly harassed by a mob every time his name is brought up.
  - davidw 7y ago
    It's a pretty good reason for him to step down as a public figure though.
    - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
      Maybe... but isn't this idea worth questioning? There are loads of scenarios where we simply say, as a society, your discomfort with someone doesn't matter on balance, and you must deal with it. Such is the case with all the hot-button "isms" today. Stigma's wrt. mental disorders haven't really gotten the same kind of love from the social justice movements, that other areas have.
  - menotyou43 7y ago
    My qualm is with the term "vilified." It implies that he is being done undue harm - he's getting what he should be getting. He should not be in a leadership position.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    I don't think merely believing or giving credence to the people who know him, combined with observation, means that his vilification comes not at the hands of those who know him. It only followed from it. You may look for fault in those primary sources, but why separately attack the rest of the world for their opinions on the matter? Also, for what it's worth, I think defending something somebody said by calling it an "unpopular opinion" is a really easy trope to fall into that makes your tone seem dismissive to the opposing viewpoint (the "popular" viewpoint).
  - diminoten 7y ago
    I don't need to know someone to be repulsed by what they've said, why the hell is that now the bar?
  - zamalek 7y ago
    We need to check ourselves on our personal heroes here. People are saying the same things about a specific American politician: "he's a good man, why are you attacking him?" If I were a philanthropist spending billions of dollars saving lives, would I get a free pass to kill a person a week? Of course not. His opinion is not unpopular. It is morally reprehensible. Yes, some countries and states allow childhood intercourse, in much the same way that slavery was tolerated in many places around the world even after it was almost universally condemned. Some minority voices are important (see: woman's suffrage, gay rights). Typically, these opinions are novel, they are new, they are revolutionary. Opinions such as the rights of pedophiles, or homosexual persecution are in contrast to hard-won battles that exist in the past. Regressive opinions are not plight, they are an appeal to return to the plight of others. He is not supporting a fringe socially progressive movement. He is supporting something that we know is wrong. Pedophilia is an atypical anomaly. It is a debilitating disability. Those people need help desperately, not a pass to continue hurting children. Edit: it also turns out that there are personal accounts of him being outwardly shitty to women. He needs a friend to course correct him, not praise or worship him.
  - mlevental 7y ago
    >Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" why? i don't understand this. if he's entitled to his unpopular opinions why in the world isn't everyone else held to the same standard? i'm entitled to my unpopular opinion (at least on hn) that he's a socially inept idiot who shouldn't be in a public facing position. will i be spared downvotes and a slew of responses harassing me? i doubt it (it's already happened twice). this has literally always been in the court of public opinion because guess what? he's not an engineer and we're not assessing the quality of his work here - we're assessing his ability to be a public persona.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 7y ago
    I don't personally know Charles Manson, but I think he is definitely deserving of vilification. Now, that doesn't mean that RMS (or anyone else) absolutely certainly deserves being vilified by people who don't know them, but the entire premise is false: knowing someone (personally, I assume is the implication?) is not a necessary condition for condemning their behavior.
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      It’s funny because this is exactly the type of argument that RMS would probably make.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        I hadn't thought of that when writing it, but yeah, he probably might. No one is claiming all his arguments are bad, or that all his arguments are framed poorly, or that all his arguments ignore how they could offend or hurt people. But some of them, arguably, do.
- confidantlake 7y ago
  Hasn't he since changed his mind about those things and apologized for it? If someone believes something bad, gets educated, and changes their point of view, isn't that a good thing?
  - revscat 7y ago
    It is, but that doesn’t mean you should want them representing you.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mjevans 7y ago
  You're missing the nuance of the language as selected. "I am skeptical" clearly prefaces a desire to be made aware of actual scientific evidence, to have the citations (references to the evidence) provided. Further, you, and others who keep beating this dead horse, do not realize that it is part of a larger, ongoing, discussion in which (IIRC from prior HN threads), RMS had that skepticism resolved with knowledge by those who actually discussed the point, rather than bashing someone for asking "is this actually true; where is the evidence?" The scientific method involves asking if assumptions are true. I can sympathize with the theory that a substantial quantity of __additional__ damage is caused by the reactions of others after such unfortunate experiences. RMS was making a supposition that might be studied. The phrasing is, as the article mentioned, rather without consideration for how others might receive such a statement.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - d0gsg0w00f 7y ago
    The facts are that these days you just can't discuss some topics "logically" in a public setting. There are forbidden topics that only have one acceptable position. For example, it's not acceptable for anyone to discuss why blackface is offensive and clowns/mimes are not.
    - nepeckman 7y ago
      The blackface discussion isn't taboo, it's just been discussed to death and there's only one reasonable position. Google minstrel shows. The history of blackface is one of mocking black people. There is no way to "logically" argue that it isn't offensive because there are no facts to back up that claim.
      - tkel 7y ago
        Yeah, and often it comes from a place of skepticism, not from a place of trying to understand. And also from a place of laziness, where the skeptic expects the marginalized person to explain why the behavior or speech is harmful, and explain it in a way that is acceptable to the skeptic. All the while the understanding is a short Google search away.
- falcolas 7y ago
  When were those posted? That they (and other similar comments) suddenly appearing out of nowhere makes me question their veracity. They represent a broader point of view - a set of values - that are quite distinct from the views that have been presented before.
  - fao_ 7y ago
    > That they (and other similar comments) suddenly appearing out of nowhere makes me question their veracity. They've been on his site for over decade, certainly longer than I've been a programmer (>8 years)
  - stordoff 7y ago
    Stallman.org: > 05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party) > Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. > [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.] > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20Jun... > 04 January 2013 (Pedophilia) > There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. > Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_20... / https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2... (Note the site is currently being _very_ slow to load, so the second one is quoted from the most recent Internet Archive)
  - stuart78 7y ago
    You can find these comments by simply searching his website. [0] contains one of those quoted by OP, from 2013. Along the way you'll find plenty more. [0] https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/2012-nov-feb.html&term=pedophilia&type=norm&case=0 https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/201...
- matz1 7y ago
  Looks like healthy scepticism to me, which I consider a good thing.
  - stuart78 7y ago
    One of those comments was in response to an article about Jimmy Savile[0]. Savile is estimated to have raped 589 children, including some as young as 8. I am "healthily skeptical" about the moral compass of people who use serial child rapists as a springboard to questions about consent on the part of minors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      It mentions him but it is not about him https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-...
- Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
  So people are not free to say things other people may find stupid or ignorant? What if I thought that your comment was stupid and ignorant and had some power over your job position? Should I use this power then?
  - danso 7y ago
    Bosses and stakeholders often hold their employees accountable for stupid and ignorant remarks. What is your argument here?
- steveeq1 7y ago
  But the judgment was not appropriate punishment for what he said. He said something you disagree with, so what? You should judge people more by their actions than any particular belief they have.
ratsmack 7y ago
The thing is though, the outrage mob usually doesn't care about facts. Their outrage is always based on the heat of the moment. It even seems this mode has been spilling over into our justice system lately, which is a very unfortunate and a sad state of affairs.
- ykevinator 7y ago
  And also, sometimes the mob is right. The mob is guilty of shooting first and asking questions later but in this case, just read what he said and wrote, the mob is both guilty and correct.
  - matz1 7y ago
    "Correct", sure, as in whichever side is the stronger and can force the other to comply is the correct one.
  - Spearchucker 7y ago
    History is written by the victor.
- emsign 7y ago
  Your comment sounds familiar. I read it very often on the internet these days under various topics.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    If a phenomenon occurs more frequently, then one would expect it to be noted more frequently. Or did you mean to imply something else?
- steveeq1 7y ago
  Yes, remember the covington kids? I happened to be with a black guy when it was on reddit and he said that he wanted to "fuck his ass up". WITHOUT TAKING THE TIME TO EXPLORE THE OTHER SIDE. If you point this out to someone who engages in outrage culture, they don't want to hear it, they've already made up their mind. Face it, the media words things in a way to generate clicks and ratings points, not for accuracy.
favorited 7y ago
Here[0] is a post by someone else who (by his own account) "worked for RMS longer than any other programmer." While he obviously has had a long relationship with Stallman, one of his key takeaways was: "RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses to a pattern of decades of poor behavior. It does not matter if they are appropriate responses to a single email thread, because they are the right thing in the total situation." Which I think is very well said. So while Paull's assessment that people's reaction to some email quotes is out-of-proportion, this is really just the proverbial straw on the back of the camel. [0] https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-departure-of-rms-18e6a835fd84 https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
- wpietri 7y ago
  Totally. I get that the OP is from Stallman's publicist. But I think a good publicist shouldn't at worse be selective about the truth, not say outright false things like this. Plenty of people who know Stallman have made it clear that Stallman's behavior is consistent, harmful, and willful. E.g.: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1172422966904160257 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1172422966904160257
  - codr7 7y ago
    And who, if I may ask, is this person who is so eagerly ventilating his opinions to feed the wolves? To me it sounds more like he's upset because RMS didn't agree with him, which would be his problem in a sane world.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      > And who, if I may ask, is this person "This person" is Thomas Bushnell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bushnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bushnell > who is so eagerly ventilating his opinions to feed the wolves? To me it sounds more like he's upset This is just my reading, but "A reflection on the departure of RMS" does not have the tone of someone who is upset nor someone who is eager. It has the tone of someone who feels like they have a unique perspective that ought to be shared on a difficult subject.
Mizza 7y ago
The thing that I find particularly obscene about these cyber lynchings is that the leaders are almost always the most privileged people in the entire world: youngish white college graduates who live in urban California and work for evil surveillance advertising companies or banks - in the 80's, they called them "yuppies." I think it must be a way to deal with the guilt of getting paid gobs of cash while walking past dozens of homeless people every day - feel better (and more importantly, look better) by saving the hypothetically oppressed from the opinions of potential tyrants. I'm also assuming once Trump is out of office it'll all be back to business as usual.
- mindslight 7y ago
  Invoking "Trump" needlessly cheapened your comment, which was otherwise relevant (although I'd include "journalists" as the leaders). It's always "business as usual" - regardless of which skinjob has won the job of absorbing outrage.
  - Mizza 7y ago
    It's certainly not an endorsement, just an observation. I think a lot of people, myself included, feel like the world just kind of went _crazy_ in 2016, and it hasn't been the same since. Of course, it didn't really change all that much - there aren't secret nazis everywhere, antifa isn't an international communist conspiracy - it's just kooks - all your neighbors are the same people. Still, our social immune system is flaring up at record highs and the symptoms are showing. Things certainly can't continue as they are. I think that Trump be ousted via impeachment or in the next election, and then there will be an international sigh of relief, and a lot of these outraged mobs will stop gnashing their teeth so much. Everybody will go back to enjoying the amenities provided by the decline of human civilization.
    - mindslight 7y ago
      I can see specific outrage mobs slowing the gnashing of their teeth, but I don't see the trend stopping. The outrage feels like it's coming from the same place of powerlessness as during the Bush II years. And sympathizing with the other tribe, the Obama years were only a reprieve due to perspective. And though we may judge their outrage as ridiculous ("Barry Soetoro"), that doesn't make it any less real. To me, Trump seems like a product of this craziness rather than a cause.
floatingatoll 7y ago
Richard Stallman has been vilified by those who experienced him. His actions are reported to repeatedly exceed what is permissible without societal censure, regardless of the logic and/or reasoning behind them. Knowing him is not necessary to react to him, and to tell stories of his actions to others.
- vnth93 7y ago
  If his logic didnt matter, shouldnt he be condemned for only being inappropriate or hostile? Yet it seems that his current reputation among the public at large is that of an actual paedophilia/rape apologist. Whether he actually was or not, this lack of concern for subtleties is the very reason why "societal censure" should only be the authority on matters relating to politeness and not criminality.
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    I disagree. Societal censure is appropriate on the topics you declare exempt. It is appropriate to fear censure and exile from your society when caught to simply be considering such activities, even if no criminal action is occurs. They are societally unacceptable. If his historical actions and present words lead others to be concerned that he’s an apologist, it is appropriate to react societally.
    - vnth93 7y ago
      I'm not aware that practicing radical self-censorship for the sake of conformity is the current standard of social justice, and, as far as I can tell, numerous forms of injustice were at one point or another deemed socially acceptable. Even justifiable concerns are just exactly that, justifiable concerns. If anything, it is the society that cannot behave however it wants but has an obligation to uphold justice. It needs to have a fair legal system as opposed to mob justice and to punish only genuine criminals as opposed to merely people with criminal reputation.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Some people might not share your primitive ambitions for witch hunts, which is all this is.
iamleppert 7y ago
It’s awful to see people come out of the woodwork to try and defend him. Who is Sylvia Paull? I wonder if her major clients would like to know that she is a supporter of someone who condones rape? In one breath she says she disagrees with it and the next she’s defending him. Crazy!
- olliej 7y ago
  She’s a publicist “friend”
- flippinburgers 7y ago
  He doesn't condone rape.
ykevinator 7y ago
If you assume he believes what he says, he is not qualified to teach kids. Sorry, I don't ascribe the qualities to him that the author accuses me of ascribing, but his views on child sex are deviant and unsafe.
chasing 7y ago
> He takes everything literally and doesn’t necessarily take feelings and the reactions of others into account when making statements that are outside the bounds of his expertise in free software. Whelp, then no one should be that surprised when people stop taking his feelings into account and decide they no longer want to be associated with him. Not being an asshole is a two-way street.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mlevental 7y ago
  there's a large contingent of people on hn (in tech, in the world) that fetishize "logic" and believe it always trumps "feelings". i put both in quotes because to this contingent both of those concepts have absolutely zero relation to their actual form. i too used to be quite fond of making completely dispassionate arguments about controversial things (race, gender, class, etc.) because i believed that the entire content of a thing was what i understood about it in my oh-so logical way. what i was missing was experience (and often context), which is not neatly captured by syllogisms and facts. e.g. ask the jews who's entitled to palestine. now ask the palestinians. there is no theorem prover that will enable you to resolve that one no matter how many historical facts you feed it because ultimately the significance of each fact is refracted through personal experience (i.e. feelings). this was as a result of being young and arrogant. i had the luxury of dispassion because none of these things had affected me in any way - i was lacking in experience of the injustices of the world that can't be written down using a set of "objective" facts. in retrospect it's a shameful mistake to have made. this kind of bullying with "logic" is abhorrent to me now, especially when coming from someone who abuses their "logical" authority ("i'm very logical at x so trust me when i reason about completely unrelated y"). i always do my best to fight that kind of fire with fire. i believe if you have abilities (oratory, "logical") your responsibility is to aid those that don't, that don't get the same kind of attention, room to speak, credence, that you do simply because what they've experienced can't be formalized.
  - viklove 7y ago
    I think you summed it up really well, but reached the wrong conclusion. Who cares who is entitled to Palestine? It's a boring and pointless problem to try and solve. People who are interested in spending their lives productively are understandably fed up with others who want to squabble over their pointless feelings that contribute nothing to society.
Pfhreak 7y ago
Dude has gone out of his way to make other people uncomfortable. I use singular they for my pronouns. He's so bothered by this that he goes out of his way to not only tell me I'm wrong for doing so, but to invent his own language for referring to folks who use gender neutral pronouns (which no one will understand, because it's not widely used). I would certainly question whether I was welcome at an event where he was a speaker/key presenter. Even if I was told I was welcome, I suspect others would feel emboldened to antagonistically challenge my pronouns. To me, it makes sense that if he's causing people to consider not attending events or signing up for his causes, then he's maybe not the right 'perse' for the job.
- mr_woozy 7y ago
  I feel emboldened to antagonistically challenge your pronouns right now, and I barely know you.
- FakeComments 7y ago
  You’re declaring how everyone else has to use language, but their refusal is antagonistic? Talk about entitled.
- marmada 7y ago
  I don't understand why his pronoun scheme is antagonistic. He still respects that you want gender neutral pronouns, he just won't use they because he thinks they has a standard plural meaning. I don't understand why people have an obligation to use "they" specifically as long as they respect the gender neutral concept.
  - neltnerb 7y ago
    Because why wouldn't you? It's pretty minimal effort for something you want to express respect for. I have no reason to think Stallman didn't support whatever gender people in whatever roles, he seems more like a gender nihilist than anything. But it's pretty weird to spend time arguing with people about what their own personal experience is and I can see why it would make someone uncomfortable and unwelcome. It's very intrusive.
  - 7y ago
olliej 7y ago
No, he has been widely reported for decades that he behaved unprofessionally, and harassed women who worked with him. That it took him publicly taking the position that child sex work was acceptable is the problem - his long history should have got him fired decades ago.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  He did not say that...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dreamcompiler 7y ago
The fact that one is neuro-atypical doesn't mean one cannot also be an asshole. RMS was both, and people finally got fed up with the latter bit.
- lallysingh 7y ago
  He's a bad representative for neuro-atypicals
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    My whole working life has bee in organisations with a disproportionate number of atypical types, and by and large found it refreshing and tolerant compared the culture outside, often macho, ignorant and dumb. Defending RMS's predilections as stemming from being aspy or whatever is really insulting to a great many in the tech community.
  - curiousgal 7y ago
    List one neuro-atypical with as many achievements and as much world-changing added value. To me this whole ordeal is simple to look at: RMS: created software that shaped today's world and hurt some people's feelings. RMS' criticizers: ...?
    - dreamcompiler 7y ago
      Just one? Temple Grandin comes immediately to mind. In our field Bill Gates probably qualifies as high-functioning neuro-atypical. And then there's Richard Greenblatt who built the first Lisp machines that eventually became the counter-inspiration for RMS's whole career.
aspaceman 7y ago
I think what this comes down to is pretty simple. Does Richard Stallman make women at MIT uncomfortable? If yes, then Richard Stallman shouldn't be a leader at MIT.
- megous 7y ago
  Why just women?
  - amp108 7y ago
    > Why just women? Because they are the people who have been made uncomfortable by his behavior. If it were men, or also men, I'm sure the parent post would have read "men or women". This is not an abstract case, so implying that somehow men are underrepresented when dealing with a person whose (alleged) behavior has been targeted at women sounds a little petty. Imagine someone is accused of abusing children, and the local prosecutor says "if we find that any children have been harmed, we will press charges". Do you really think you need to correct them by saying "but what about adults?" It's unnecessary, and distracts from the actual case.
    - megous 7y ago
      The post just asks a question. I'm sure plenty of men were also made uncomfortable by his behavior and stubborness with regards to free software. I'm just asking why exclude those? I don't think doing uncomfortable things necessarily means harmful abuse, so your metaphor doesn't help me much.
    - kragen 7y ago
      Stallman has made everyone uncomfortable. Have you ever met the guy? But that's not a good excuse for firing him.
flippinburgers 7y ago
If you read the article she notes that the infamous "hot ladies" photo was the result of someone else writing and then snapping that shot of his office door. People only see what they want to see. I see a bunch of people beating up on and attacking an awkward "nerd". It reminds me of high school.
- zaroth 7y ago
  But on Twitter all you see is this; https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1172283772428906496?s=21 https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1172283772428906496?s=21
  - markdown 7y ago
    https://i.postimg.cc/HW8q1j1s/Screenshot-2019-10-01-at-3-00-23-PM.png https://i.postimg.cc/HW8q1j1s/Screenshot-2019-10-01-at-3-00-...
  - tudelo 7y ago
    That thread definitely has a lot of interesting information. Some things seem kind of off though... but in general it seems mostly fair.
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      There is nothing fair about it.
      - parasubvert 7y ago
        On the contrary. She's being quite fair.
        zaroth 7y ago
        Keep in mind that the premise of the thread (the picture of the name tag on the door) is actually a setup. Someone graffitis on Stallman’s door, and that mob justice character assassination spews forth from it.
baron_harkonnen 7y ago
We are, sadly, entering a new age of conformity. Aligning yourself with what main stream society thinks is correct is now more important than anything else. The response of course is that "bad behavior should never be excused, regardless of ability!" which leads to a losing argument in which we try to say what kind of good excuses what kind of bad. But this presupposes the conformist stance: that fitting in with the norms is the default behavior, and violations of it must be explained. The Hacker culture from which everything we have today in tech arose. Which is the culture that Stallman arguably helped create. The culture which makes this site "Hacker" news, is one in which doing something interesting is more important than anything else. The presupposition from this more iconoclastic view is: why aren't you doing something interesting? Adhering to norms because it's the "safe" thing to do is the true aberrant behavior. It's a shame too since now of all points in human history we need more radical thinkers and people who are willing to question the status quo, which btw is inherently unsustainable. But maybe it's this fear that leads us rushing back to deep moral systems likes religious fantastics when their faith is questioned.
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  > We are, sadly, entering a new age of conformity We have always been in an "age of conformity". For example, Obergefell v. Hodges was decided less than 5 years ago. There are still children who are homeless because they aren't sexually conformant. What is changing is not the degree to which society demands conformity. All that is change is who has to conform, and the standards to which they have to conform. Conformity is not bad. Abstaining from wanton murder and theft is conforming to social norms. What matters is whether the norms are good ones. > The Hacker culture from which everything we have today in tech arose. This is a nice origin fantasy, but it's really not true. The uniforms at DoD and the suits at IBM/Intel/AT&T/Xerox/etc. played a huge role in envisioning, organizing, and bankrolling all that work. Also, that work was done by of hundreds of thousands of white-collar and blue-collar professionals. Many of those engineers and technicians were not self-described "hackers" or "nerds". A lot of them contributed by digging ditches and climbing polls. A lot of them were brilliant engineers who at 5pm turned off the computer screen, went home to their families, and didn't think about work until 9am the next day. > The culture which makes this site "Hacker" news, is one in which doing something interesting is more important than anything else... why aren't you doing something interesting? Because some times boring things are important to help society function or to make money. Examples: Attending city council/school board meetings. Being a middle man. Running warehouses. Selling advertisements. Giving away vaccines and moz nets. And honestly 99% of other work done by companies, nonprofits, and active citizens. Including software companies. Boring, not interesting, and yet to varying degrees important. In fact, some of those things are super interesting (ad auctions, for example, are wonderful fun for math nerds) but not nearly as important as the boring things (passing out vaccines or setting up moz nets or taking minutes at a city council meeting -- seriously, not fun). > But maybe it's this fear that leads us rushing back to deep moral systems likes religious fantastics when their faith is questioned. We all have our convictions and stories in which we find meaning. We're all unreasonable defensive about those stories we tell ourselves. ...In fact, on that note, one more thing to add to the list of boring things that we for some reason feel the need to do: political arguments on a news forum that financially benefits VC by tapping into a fantastical ethos about the origin of modern computing. Now, tell me no one here is going to get unreasonably defensive about that ;-)
jameslk 7y ago
Stallman resigned from MIT and the FSF. So why are we still talking about it? It's not going change any of this or exonerate his name. You only have one reputation and once it's damaged, it's very hard to recover. So all this talk is just arguments on the internet at this point. Time to move on. Also, I realize this is an unpopular opinion here because of the lack of awareness that most outside this community don't even know who Stallman is nor care and can't accept they're wasting their time on this topic. The more he's talked about with regards to this controversy, the more he will be known for this issue and less about the things he fought over the decades for the free software movement. Good job everyone.
- noobermin 7y ago
  If it's over then what pain does it cause HN to discuss it here?
  - jameslk 7y ago
    This article and thread further alienates those in this community who are affected by Stallman's comments and pushes them away. While providing no value other than creating a venue for others to talk past each other and upvoting/downvoting those who take their side. In other words, it's politics.
twblalock 7y ago
His job, as the head of the FSF and GNU, was to represent those organizations to the public, which includes many people who don't know him. Being judged and vilified by people who don't know you is what happens to public figures. If your behavior brings disrepute on the organizations you represent, you should let those organizations find different representatives. RMS was right to step down. He is still free to say whatever he wants as an individual without damaging the reputations of GNU and the FSF.
- DocTomoe 7y ago
  I agree. That's why I cancelled my recurring donations to the FSF after this debacle. There are other, more worthy causes than an organization which considers public opinion to be more important than integrity, an organization that essentially axes it's central figure because of some internet trolls.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    Same here.
- ng12 7y ago
  The issue is that Stallman has been this way for decades -- he's always been outspoken, nitpicky, and aggressively libertarian -- and FSF has flourished under his sole leadership. It's only in 2019 that internet culture and clickbait media have made it a "problem". To me, that is significantly more harmful than any of the wonky things RMS sometimes says.
  - dirtybird04 7y ago
    I don't know or care much about Stallman and the situation, don't really have a dog in this fight. What I do know is that "It's been like this for decades" is never an appropriate defense.
    - ng12 7y ago
      Not "it's been like this" -- he, a human person, has been like this. In fact he's been voluntarily blogging his political thoughts for decades (which, again, in 2019 is an incredibly dangerous thing to do). So the question is this: if he's had his outspoken opinions on controversial topics for decades, there's no evidence of his opinions actually causing any real tangible harm, and under his tenure the FSF has been a runaway success -- why is it an issue now?
nautilus12 7y ago
I guess we've just reached the point as a society where we've decided that we enjoy the professional bloodlust of burning anyone at the stake that isn't a paradigm of behavior to leave any room for forgiveness. Welcome to the new Salem.
- parasubvert 7y ago
  Oh, bring me the smelling salts. It is no such thing. RMS is still alive. And in charge of GNU. He lost some privileged positions because society has decided that it's time for women get powerful.
paulproteus 7y ago
> I do not excuse Richard Stallman’s remarks, nor do I challenge the actions of both the MIT Media Lab and the FSF for terminating his positions with them. It wasn't the Media Lab with which Richard had a position; it was MIT CSAIL.
lilyball 7y ago
> As an active feminist and one who has witnessed much bad behavior among tech CEOs over the past 30 years, I think that accusing Richard Stallman of not supporting women, gays, or any other minority group is false. Look at his real history — […] — but his record in helping to give everyone in the world access to free software. What kind of bullshit is this? Stallman's advocacy for open source in no way whatsoever makes him a champion for women, gay people, or any other marginalized group, and does not even remotely excuse his behavior. Sylvia, calling yourself a feminist doesn't actually make you one.
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  She has reasonably solid feminist credentials, which she presented up front, probably to preempt accusations of sexism. No True Scotsman would ever support Stallman?
  - lilyball 7y ago
    "Feminist credentials" aren't really a thing. It's not like there's an organization you can carry a card for.
- ng12 7y ago
  That's a good question, how is it decided? Is there a tribunal?
haolez 7y ago
Kind of meta, but I don’t think Hacker News downvotes are being used as intended in this thread. There are a lot of well constructed arguments exposed in a polite manner that are downvoted.
- mattsfrey 7y ago
  lmao, welcome to hn comment section circa 2012+
unityByFreedom 7y ago
Perhaps this author is unaware of the number of statements Stallman has made regarding pedophilia on his website over the years [1]. If RMS has changed his point of view, he can go back to those parts of his blog and add an update. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=pedophile+site%3Astallman.org https://www.google.com/search?q=pedophile+site%3Astallman.or...
- NiekvdMaas 7y ago
  100% agreed. This is one of the worst examples: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... I'm all for freedom of speech, but I don't see how people can defend these kind of opinions he's advocating.
  - unityByFreedom 7y ago
    Yeah. It's not clear to me whether or not RMS still believes these things. He may need time to collect himself. In the mean time, I don't understand blog posts like this one that completely gloss over his past statements which remain the same without further comment.
    - kragen 7y ago
      He has said that he changed his mind.
      - unityByFreedom 7y ago
        Are you referring to this brief statement [1]? That does not pass as sincere in my book. Good luck to him in the future, I hope he gets everything sorted. [1] https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe...
        7y ago
Mugwort 7y ago
Most programmers aren't worth even a pimple on Richard Stallman's ass. Most people too.
thekevan 7y ago
Stallman came up with a great idea, got it started but has been a toxic personality in the community. The open source movement was created because of his involvement, yet flourished in spite of his personality.
bronz 7y ago
whether or not all the accusations are based in reality, i am glad to see this happening to richard. all he did was bake his own personal political beliefs into popular software. it was totally unnecessary and counter-productive. people like to worship open-source people like richard and sdr. i dont get it. he was also a huge autistic asshole. the more i think about it the more i dislike him. on his personal website he has pages about why not to use popular services like airbnb. one of his reasons is because they use proprietary code in their app. another it because you have to register with identifying information. hes an annoying zealot who will literally never be satisfied. a person who draws purpose from the act of contradicting and belittling other people. a person who has no sensibility whatsoever when it comes to society, the big picture or the subtle insights of social grace. good fucking riddance.
mirimir 7y ago
Also: https://medium.com/@richardsmith_76348/richard-stallman-was-framed-and-misquoted-c76302bdebe https://medium.com/@richardsmith_76348/richard-stallman-was-...
xenadu02 7y ago
There's a rule: If Stallman is invited to speak at your conference under NO circumstances should you allow him to stay at your place, nor at the home of anyone you care about or even don't outright hate (ask Miguel de Icaza about it some time). Why does that rule exist? Because he has, many times, shown up and refused to leave for weeks. He brings random flings back to your place. He refuses to shower or observe basic hygiene. He's the worst houseguest imaginable. Hell, why did VA Linux send an email all female employees letting them know when Stallman would be visiting so they could work from home or make themselves scarce? For that matter, how many people (especially women) dropped out of MIT, moved to another major, or left the lab because of Stallman? Why does Stallman feel entitled to abuse other people's hospitality? Why does he get to do as he pleases? Why are his feelings and his experiences the only ones that matter? I think this has bearing on the current issues: Stallman has been protected by those around him. He was protected by Minsky early on. This taught him that he could do as he pleased without consequences. He was never forced to learn socially acceptable behavior. You sometimes see the same thing with child stars or pampered celebrities: No one ever tells them "no". They never face real consequences for their actions. Everyone around them makes excuses, either because they look up to them or because they're the gravy train. Things escalate until a) they cross the line so badly they can't weasel out of it or b) some "straw that broke the camel's back" situation arises. In situation "a" the person is often confused and bewildered because they've done as they pleased for a very long time. They don't understand why the current situation should be different. In situation "b" people often focus on the trivialities of the current incident, ignoring everything that came before it. Am I saying Stallman should have been run out on a rail early on? Not at all... but Minsky shouldn't have excused Stallman's behavior. The first time Stallman cornered a woman in an elevator at MIT and blocked her from leaving Minsky should have, at the least, sat him down and said "stop it or you are out". We do a great disservice by sweeping complaints under the rug or excusing "geniuses". Bad behavior doesn't usually magically clear up, it tends to get worse over time as people learn they are the chosen ones and won't be questioned. Does Stallman deserve the hate he's getting as a result of some posts to an email list? I don't know. Should Stallman have been kicked off the FSF board a long time ago? Absolutely.
- kragen 7y ago
  > The first time Stallman cornered a woman in an elevator at MIT and blocked her from leaving Is this a thing that happened or something you just thought up? I've talked to women who worked with Stallman at MIT and complained to me about ways he hit on them and they never mentioned anything like that.
johnny22 7y ago
Anybody else surprised this is posted on medium of all places? I'm surprised Stallman would agree to such a thing.
- jasonvorhe 7y ago
  So he should get to decide where is name is being mentioned? As if it wasn't enough that he's dictating which video streaming codec is used for his talks.
hota_mazi 7y ago
> Look at his real history — not the sign about welcoming “hot ladies” on his MIT Media lab office door, which someone else wrote as a joke and which he removed but not before someone took a photo of it — but his record in helping to give everyone in the world access to free software. He has truly made our world a better, more free place. Just because someone did good things doesn't automatically make the bad things he said or did go away. This is a very dangerous position to hold. Stallman has an established record going back more than ten years of saying despicable things about women and children and the only reason why this reckoning didn't happen to him until today is because people like the author of this article gave him a pass for philosophical reasons. She is part of the problem and one of the reasons why women are having such a hard time in the industry today.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > Just because someone did good things doesn't automatically make the bad things he said or did go away This is not what your quote says. > Stallman has an established record going back more than ten years of saying despicable things about women and children I would be interested to see them. > She is part of the problem and one of the reasons why women are having such a hard time in the industry today. This is a very bold claim, would you happen to have anything to base it off other than her personal opinions that she expressed about Stallman?
- virgilp 7y ago
  > She is part of the problem and one of the reasons why women are having such a hard time in the industry today. Yes. She should be fired for this opinion... though perhaps that would be too lenient, given how much suffering her opinion caused? > saying despicable things I miss the good old times when saying despicable things about our lord and savior would get you a well-deserved bonfire.
PHGamer 7y ago
even if he is an asshole, he has the right to say what he wants. I sorta get FSF ditching him because linux is going corporate (which I am very much against). but MIT (and western schools in general) are no longer places where free speech is allowed and that is the greater atrocity.
- jasonvorhe 7y ago
  MIT first needs to clean up the shit show they've allowed to foster in their midst with regards to taking funding from convicted rapists of adolescent girls first.
zby 7y ago
We want our public figures to be predictable. When we lived in small bands we knew the peoples our whole life and we could build a really good model of their thinking. Later when we had bigger polities, we did not have that much information about the leaders. Now we know all of what they say and do and any time - but what is reported are only the deviations from the expectations - in our perception they are not balanced by the whole daily predictable lifes. To be public figure now means to be a good actor, understand what the public thinks about you and constantly adjust your behaviour to fit in and never be caught on any deviation from the public figure image. Stallman is not good at adjusting behaviour. He is still pretty predictable in the geek culture - but for the wider public he is really weird. See also this blogchain: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/series/predictable-identities/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/series/predictable-identities/ And in particular this quote from another article: "The perception of creepiness is a response to the ambiguity of threat. […] While they may not be overtly threatening, individuals who display unusual patterns of nonverbal behavior, odd emotional responses or highly distinctive physical characteristics are outside the norm, and by definition unpredictable." from https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2016.03.003 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.20...
cable2600 7y ago
They took his words out of context: https://medium.com/@richardsmith_76348/richard-stallman-was-framed-and-misquoted-c76302bdebe https://medium.com/@richardsmith_76348/richard-stallman-was-... https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/?source=post_page-----c76302bdebe---------------------- https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stal...
_nalply 7y ago
I met Mr Stallman only once, so I don't know him, but remembering this only encounter I feel that he is not one of those humans who wield power expertly. So he fell. I think this is like a putsch. We will see what happens with GNU the next ten years. I don't mean to exculpate nor denounce him, just point out that he is different.
yread 7y ago
So where are the blogs defending him written by all the women there were included in his culture of tolerance? I would upvote that!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Even if women who worked with him feel that way, you are highly unlikely to see such. Women are generally more vulnerable than men. Other women will tear apart a "traitor" to the feminist cause. Defending someone who is the focus of a metaphorical lynch mob almost never helps them and frequently means you are next.
jasonvorhe 7y ago
The amount of people still defending m and claiming that this is merely mob justice is shocking.
airbreather 7y ago
I am finding the endless outrage about thoughts to be extremely tedious, I can see where the snowflake terminology came from. At least reserve outrage for actions, thought police are Stasi style.
bechampion 7y ago
I met him around 2002 , he was nuts already . He says shit he would've gotten away in the early days of the internet but he doesn't now . He hasn't change much to be fair it's just now what he says gets echoed in social networks.
coleifer 7y ago
His life's been ruined by a shrieking Twitter mob. Who's next? These sjws are complete parasites. They never fork. Just go after vulnerable people at the top and insinuate their way into established institutions.
amai 7y ago
At least Stallman resigned himself. Other presidents are doing much more horrible things and do not plan to resign ever.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

511 points by lelf 7y ago

Come on.

Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: > “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” > “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realise they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.” RMS isn't being "vilified," he's facing proper judgment for the stupid, ignorant, and disgusting things he's said.

deogeo 7y ago
He made some questionable comments, but the media did also lie - documented here: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
topmonk 7y ago
>> Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him > Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: Do you know him? Aren't you vilifying him? Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" of being constantly harassed by a mob every time his name is brought up.
- davidw 7y ago
  It's a pretty good reason for him to step down as a public figure though.
  - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
    Maybe... but isn't this idea worth questioning? There are loads of scenarios where we simply say, as a society, your discomfort with someone doesn't matter on balance, and you must deal with it. Such is the case with all the hot-button "isms" today. Stigma's wrt. mental disorders haven't really gotten the same kind of love from the social justice movements, that other areas have.
- menotyou43 7y ago
  My qualm is with the term "vilified." It implies that he is being done undue harm - he's getting what he should be getting. He should not be in a leadership position.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  I don't think merely believing or giving credence to the people who know him, combined with observation, means that his vilification comes not at the hands of those who know him. It only followed from it. You may look for fault in those primary sources, but why separately attack the rest of the world for their opinions on the matter? Also, for what it's worth, I think defending something somebody said by calling it an "unpopular opinion" is a really easy trope to fall into that makes your tone seem dismissive to the opposing viewpoint (the "popular" viewpoint).
- diminoten 7y ago
  I don't need to know someone to be repulsed by what they've said, why the hell is that now the bar?
- zamalek 7y ago
  We need to check ourselves on our personal heroes here. People are saying the same things about a specific American politician: "he's a good man, why are you attacking him?" If I were a philanthropist spending billions of dollars saving lives, would I get a free pass to kill a person a week? Of course not. His opinion is not unpopular. It is morally reprehensible. Yes, some countries and states allow childhood intercourse, in much the same way that slavery was tolerated in many places around the world even after it was almost universally condemned. Some minority voices are important (see: woman's suffrage, gay rights). Typically, these opinions are novel, they are new, they are revolutionary. Opinions such as the rights of pedophiles, or homosexual persecution are in contrast to hard-won battles that exist in the past. Regressive opinions are not plight, they are an appeal to return to the plight of others. He is not supporting a fringe socially progressive movement. He is supporting something that we know is wrong. Pedophilia is an atypical anomaly. It is a debilitating disability. Those people need help desperately, not a pass to continue hurting children. Edit: it also turns out that there are personal accounts of him being outwardly shitty to women. He needs a friend to course correct him, not praise or worship him.
- mlevental 7y ago
  >Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" why? i don't understand this. if he's entitled to his unpopular opinions why in the world isn't everyone else held to the same standard? i'm entitled to my unpopular opinion (at least on hn) that he's a socially inept idiot who shouldn't be in a public facing position. will i be spared downvotes and a slew of responses harassing me? i doubt it (it's already happened twice). this has literally always been in the court of public opinion because guess what? he's not an engineer and we're not assessing the quality of his work here - we're assessing his ability to be a public persona.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 7y ago
  I don't personally know Charles Manson, but I think he is definitely deserving of vilification. Now, that doesn't mean that RMS (or anyone else) absolutely certainly deserves being vilified by people who don't know them, but the entire premise is false: knowing someone (personally, I assume is the implication?) is not a necessary condition for condemning their behavior.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    It’s funny because this is exactly the type of argument that RMS would probably make.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      I hadn't thought of that when writing it, but yeah, he probably might. No one is claiming all his arguments are bad, or that all his arguments are framed poorly, or that all his arguments ignore how they could offend or hurt people. But some of them, arguably, do.
confidantlake 7y ago
Hasn't he since changed his mind about those things and apologized for it? If someone believes something bad, gets educated, and changes their point of view, isn't that a good thing?
- revscat 7y ago
  It is, but that doesn’t mean you should want them representing you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mjevans 7y ago
You're missing the nuance of the language as selected. "I am skeptical" clearly prefaces a desire to be made aware of actual scientific evidence, to have the citations (references to the evidence) provided. Further, you, and others who keep beating this dead horse, do not realize that it is part of a larger, ongoing, discussion in which (IIRC from prior HN threads), RMS had that skepticism resolved with knowledge by those who actually discussed the point, rather than bashing someone for asking "is this actually true; where is the evidence?" The scientific method involves asking if assumptions are true. I can sympathize with the theory that a substantial quantity of __additional__ damage is caused by the reactions of others after such unfortunate experiences. RMS was making a supposition that might be studied. The phrasing is, as the article mentioned, rather without consideration for how others might receive such a statement.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- d0gsg0w00f 7y ago
  The facts are that these days you just can't discuss some topics "logically" in a public setting. There are forbidden topics that only have one acceptable position. For example, it's not acceptable for anyone to discuss why blackface is offensive and clowns/mimes are not.
  - nepeckman 7y ago
    The blackface discussion isn't taboo, it's just been discussed to death and there's only one reasonable position. Google minstrel shows. The history of blackface is one of mocking black people. There is no way to "logically" argue that it isn't offensive because there are no facts to back up that claim.
    - tkel 7y ago
      Yeah, and often it comes from a place of skepticism, not from a place of trying to understand. And also from a place of laziness, where the skeptic expects the marginalized person to explain why the behavior or speech is harmful, and explain it in a way that is acceptable to the skeptic. All the while the understanding is a short Google search away.
falcolas 7y ago
When were those posted? That they (and other similar comments) suddenly appearing out of nowhere makes me question their veracity. They represent a broader point of view - a set of values - that are quite distinct from the views that have been presented before.
- fao_ 7y ago
  > That they (and other similar comments) suddenly appearing out of nowhere makes me question their veracity. They've been on his site for over decade, certainly longer than I've been a programmer (>8 years)
- stordoff 7y ago
  Stallman.org: > 05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party) > Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. > [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.] > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20Jun... > 04 January 2013 (Pedophilia) > There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. > Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_20... / https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2... (Note the site is currently being _very_ slow to load, so the second one is quoted from the most recent Internet Archive)
- stuart78 7y ago
  You can find these comments by simply searching his website. [0] contains one of those quoted by OP, from 2013. Along the way you'll find plenty more. [0] https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/2012-nov-feb.html&term=pedophilia&type=norm&case=0 https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/201...
matz1 7y ago
Looks like healthy scepticism to me, which I consider a good thing.
- stuart78 7y ago
  One of those comments was in response to an article about Jimmy Savile[0]. Savile is estimated to have raped 589 children, including some as young as 8. I am "healthily skeptical" about the moral compass of people who use serial child rapists as a springboard to questions about consent on the part of minors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    It mentions him but it is not about him https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-...
Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
So people are not free to say things other people may find stupid or ignorant? What if I thought that your comment was stupid and ignorant and had some power over your job position? Should I use this power then?
- danso 7y ago
  Bosses and stakeholders often hold their employees accountable for stupid and ignorant remarks. What is your argument here?
steveeq1 7y ago
But the judgment was not appropriate punishment for what he said. He said something you disagree with, so what? You should judge people more by their actions than any particular belief they have.

ratsmack 7y ago

The thing is though, the outrage mob usually doesn't care about facts. Their outrage is always based on the heat of the moment. It even seems this mode has been spilling over into our justice system lately, which is a very unfortunate and a sad state of affairs.

ykevinator 7y ago
And also, sometimes the mob is right. The mob is guilty of shooting first and asking questions later but in this case, just read what he said and wrote, the mob is both guilty and correct.
- matz1 7y ago
  "Correct", sure, as in whichever side is the stronger and can force the other to comply is the correct one.
- Spearchucker 7y ago
  History is written by the victor.
emsign 7y ago
Your comment sounds familiar. I read it very often on the internet these days under various topics.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  If a phenomenon occurs more frequently, then one would expect it to be noted more frequently. Or did you mean to imply something else?
steveeq1 7y ago
Yes, remember the covington kids? I happened to be with a black guy when it was on reddit and he said that he wanted to "fuck his ass up". WITHOUT TAKING THE TIME TO EXPLORE THE OTHER SIDE. If you point this out to someone who engages in outrage culture, they don't want to hear it, they've already made up their mind. Face it, the media words things in a way to generate clicks and ratings points, not for accuracy.

favorited 7y ago

Here[0] is a post by someone else who (by his own account) "worked for RMS longer than any other programmer." While he obviously has had a long relationship with Stallman, one of his key takeaways was: "RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses to a pattern of decades of poor behavior. It does not matter if they are appropriate responses to a single email thread, because they are the right thing in the total situation." Which I think is very well said. So while Paull's assessment that people's reaction to some email quotes is out-of-proportion, this is really just the proverbial straw on the back of the camel. [0] https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-departure-of-rms-18e6a835fd84 https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

wpietri 7y ago
Totally. I get that the OP is from Stallman's publicist. But I think a good publicist shouldn't at worse be selective about the truth, not say outright false things like this. Plenty of people who know Stallman have made it clear that Stallman's behavior is consistent, harmful, and willful. E.g.: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1172422966904160257 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1172422966904160257
- codr7 7y ago
  And who, if I may ask, is this person who is so eagerly ventilating his opinions to feed the wolves? To me it sounds more like he's upset because RMS didn't agree with him, which would be his problem in a sane world.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    > And who, if I may ask, is this person "This person" is Thomas Bushnell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bushnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bushnell > who is so eagerly ventilating his opinions to feed the wolves? To me it sounds more like he's upset This is just my reading, but "A reflection on the departure of RMS" does not have the tone of someone who is upset nor someone who is eager. It has the tone of someone who feels like they have a unique perspective that ought to be shared on a difficult subject.

Mizza 7y ago

The thing that I find particularly obscene about these cyber lynchings is that the leaders are almost always the most privileged people in the entire world: youngish white college graduates who live in urban California and work for evil surveillance advertising companies or banks - in the 80's, they called them "yuppies." I think it must be a way to deal with the guilt of getting paid gobs of cash while walking past dozens of homeless people every day - feel better (and more importantly, look better) by saving the hypothetically oppressed from the opinions of potential tyrants. I'm also assuming once Trump is out of office it'll all be back to business as usual.

mindslight 7y ago
Invoking "Trump" needlessly cheapened your comment, which was otherwise relevant (although I'd include "journalists" as the leaders). It's always "business as usual" - regardless of which skinjob has won the job of absorbing outrage.
- Mizza 7y ago
  It's certainly not an endorsement, just an observation. I think a lot of people, myself included, feel like the world just kind of went _crazy_ in 2016, and it hasn't been the same since. Of course, it didn't really change all that much - there aren't secret nazis everywhere, antifa isn't an international communist conspiracy - it's just kooks - all your neighbors are the same people. Still, our social immune system is flaring up at record highs and the symptoms are showing. Things certainly can't continue as they are. I think that Trump be ousted via impeachment or in the next election, and then there will be an international sigh of relief, and a lot of these outraged mobs will stop gnashing their teeth so much. Everybody will go back to enjoying the amenities provided by the decline of human civilization.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    I can see specific outrage mobs slowing the gnashing of their teeth, but I don't see the trend stopping. The outrage feels like it's coming from the same place of powerlessness as during the Bush II years. And sympathizing with the other tribe, the Obama years were only a reprieve due to perspective. And though we may judge their outrage as ridiculous ("Barry Soetoro"), that doesn't make it any less real. To me, Trump seems like a product of this craziness rather than a cause.

floatingatoll 7y ago

Richard Stallman has been vilified by those who experienced him. His actions are reported to repeatedly exceed what is permissible without societal censure, regardless of the logic and/or reasoning behind them. Knowing him is not necessary to react to him, and to tell stories of his actions to others.

vnth93 7y ago
If his logic didnt matter, shouldnt he be condemned for only being inappropriate or hostile? Yet it seems that his current reputation among the public at large is that of an actual paedophilia/rape apologist. Whether he actually was or not, this lack of concern for subtleties is the very reason why "societal censure" should only be the authority on matters relating to politeness and not criminality.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  I disagree. Societal censure is appropriate on the topics you declare exempt. It is appropriate to fear censure and exile from your society when caught to simply be considering such activities, even if no criminal action is occurs. They are societally unacceptable. If his historical actions and present words lead others to be concerned that he’s an apologist, it is appropriate to react societally.
  - vnth93 7y ago
    I'm not aware that practicing radical self-censorship for the sake of conformity is the current standard of social justice, and, as far as I can tell, numerous forms of injustice were at one point or another deemed socially acceptable. Even justifiable concerns are just exactly that, justifiable concerns. If anything, it is the society that cannot behave however it wants but has an obligation to uphold justice. It needs to have a fair legal system as opposed to mob justice and to punish only genuine criminals as opposed to merely people with criminal reputation.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Some people might not share your primitive ambitions for witch hunts, which is all this is.

iamleppert 7y ago

It’s awful to see people come out of the woodwork to try and defend him. Who is Sylvia Paull? I wonder if her major clients would like to know that she is a supporter of someone who condones rape? In one breath she says she disagrees with it and the next she’s defending him. Crazy!

olliej 7y ago
She’s a publicist “friend”
flippinburgers 7y ago
He doesn't condone rape.

ykevinator 7y ago

If you assume he believes what he says, he is not qualified to teach kids. Sorry, I don't ascribe the qualities to him that the author accuses me of ascribing, but his views on child sex are deviant and unsafe.

chasing 7y ago

> He takes everything literally and doesn’t necessarily take feelings and the reactions of others into account when making statements that are outside the bounds of his expertise in free software. Whelp, then no one should be that surprised when people stop taking his feelings into account and decide they no longer want to be associated with him. Not being an asshole is a two-way street.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mlevental 7y ago
there's a large contingent of people on hn (in tech, in the world) that fetishize "logic" and believe it always trumps "feelings". i put both in quotes because to this contingent both of those concepts have absolutely zero relation to their actual form. i too used to be quite fond of making completely dispassionate arguments about controversial things (race, gender, class, etc.) because i believed that the entire content of a thing was what i understood about it in my oh-so logical way. what i was missing was experience (and often context), which is not neatly captured by syllogisms and facts. e.g. ask the jews who's entitled to palestine. now ask the palestinians. there is no theorem prover that will enable you to resolve that one no matter how many historical facts you feed it because ultimately the significance of each fact is refracted through personal experience (i.e. feelings). this was as a result of being young and arrogant. i had the luxury of dispassion because none of these things had affected me in any way - i was lacking in experience of the injustices of the world that can't be written down using a set of "objective" facts. in retrospect it's a shameful mistake to have made. this kind of bullying with "logic" is abhorrent to me now, especially when coming from someone who abuses their "logical" authority ("i'm very logical at x so trust me when i reason about completely unrelated y"). i always do my best to fight that kind of fire with fire. i believe if you have abilities (oratory, "logical") your responsibility is to aid those that don't, that don't get the same kind of attention, room to speak, credence, that you do simply because what they've experienced can't be formalized.
- viklove 7y ago
  I think you summed it up really well, but reached the wrong conclusion. Who cares who is entitled to Palestine? It's a boring and pointless problem to try and solve. People who are interested in spending their lives productively are understandably fed up with others who want to squabble over their pointless feelings that contribute nothing to society.

Pfhreak 7y ago

Dude has gone out of his way to make other people uncomfortable. I use singular they for my pronouns. He's so bothered by this that he goes out of his way to not only tell me I'm wrong for doing so, but to invent his own language for referring to folks who use gender neutral pronouns (which no one will understand, because it's not widely used). I would certainly question whether I was welcome at an event where he was a speaker/key presenter. Even if I was told I was welcome, I suspect others would feel emboldened to antagonistically challenge my pronouns. To me, it makes sense that if he's causing people to consider not attending events or signing up for his causes, then he's maybe not the right 'perse' for the job.

mr_woozy 7y ago
I feel emboldened to antagonistically challenge your pronouns right now, and I barely know you.
FakeComments 7y ago
You’re declaring how everyone else has to use language, but their refusal is antagonistic? Talk about entitled.
marmada 7y ago
I don't understand why his pronoun scheme is antagonistic. He still respects that you want gender neutral pronouns, he just won't use they because he thinks they has a standard plural meaning. I don't understand why people have an obligation to use "they" specifically as long as they respect the gender neutral concept.
- neltnerb 7y ago
  Because why wouldn't you? It's pretty minimal effort for something you want to express respect for. I have no reason to think Stallman didn't support whatever gender people in whatever roles, he seems more like a gender nihilist than anything. But it's pretty weird to spend time arguing with people about what their own personal experience is and I can see why it would make someone uncomfortable and unwelcome. It's very intrusive.
- 7y ago

olliej 7y ago

No, he has been widely reported for decades that he behaved unprofessionally, and harassed women who worked with him. That it took him publicly taking the position that child sex work was acceptable is the problem - his long history should have got him fired decades ago.

dependenttypes 7y ago
He did not say that...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dreamcompiler 7y ago

The fact that one is neuro-atypical doesn't mean one cannot also be an asshole. RMS was both, and people finally got fed up with the latter bit.

lallysingh 7y ago
He's a bad representative for neuro-atypicals
- angry_octet 7y ago
  My whole working life has bee in organisations with a disproportionate number of atypical types, and by and large found it refreshing and tolerant compared the culture outside, often macho, ignorant and dumb. Defending RMS's predilections as stemming from being aspy or whatever is really insulting to a great many in the tech community.
- curiousgal 7y ago
  List one neuro-atypical with as many achievements and as much world-changing added value. To me this whole ordeal is simple to look at: RMS: created software that shaped today's world and hurt some people's feelings. RMS' criticizers: ...?
  - dreamcompiler 7y ago
    Just one? Temple Grandin comes immediately to mind. In our field Bill Gates probably qualifies as high-functioning neuro-atypical. And then there's Richard Greenblatt who built the first Lisp machines that eventually became the counter-inspiration for RMS's whole career.

aspaceman 7y ago

I think what this comes down to is pretty simple. Does Richard Stallman make women at MIT uncomfortable? If yes, then Richard Stallman shouldn't be a leader at MIT.

megous 7y ago
Why just women?
- amp108 7y ago
  > Why just women? Because they are the people who have been made uncomfortable by his behavior. If it were men, or also men, I'm sure the parent post would have read "men or women". This is not an abstract case, so implying that somehow men are underrepresented when dealing with a person whose (alleged) behavior has been targeted at women sounds a little petty. Imagine someone is accused of abusing children, and the local prosecutor says "if we find that any children have been harmed, we will press charges". Do you really think you need to correct them by saying "but what about adults?" It's unnecessary, and distracts from the actual case.
  - megous 7y ago
    The post just asks a question. I'm sure plenty of men were also made uncomfortable by his behavior and stubborness with regards to free software. I'm just asking why exclude those? I don't think doing uncomfortable things necessarily means harmful abuse, so your metaphor doesn't help me much.
  - kragen 7y ago
    Stallman has made everyone uncomfortable. Have you ever met the guy? But that's not a good excuse for firing him.

flippinburgers 7y ago

If you read the article she notes that the infamous "hot ladies" photo was the result of someone else writing and then snapping that shot of his office door. People only see what they want to see. I see a bunch of people beating up on and attacking an awkward "nerd". It reminds me of high school.

zaroth 7y ago
But on Twitter all you see is this; https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1172283772428906496?s=21 https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1172283772428906496?s=21
- markdown 7y ago
  https://i.postimg.cc/HW8q1j1s/Screenshot-2019-10-01-at-3-00-23-PM.png https://i.postimg.cc/HW8q1j1s/Screenshot-2019-10-01-at-3-00-...
- tudelo 7y ago
  That thread definitely has a lot of interesting information. Some things seem kind of off though... but in general it seems mostly fair.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    There is nothing fair about it.
    - parasubvert 7y ago
      On the contrary. She's being quite fair.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        Keep in mind that the premise of the thread (the picture of the name tag on the door) is actually a setup. Someone graffitis on Stallman’s door, and that mob justice character assassination spews forth from it.

baron_harkonnen 7y ago

We are, sadly, entering a new age of conformity. Aligning yourself with what main stream society thinks is correct is now more important than anything else. The response of course is that "bad behavior should never be excused, regardless of ability!" which leads to a losing argument in which we try to say what kind of good excuses what kind of bad. But this presupposes the conformist stance: that fitting in with the norms is the default behavior, and violations of it must be explained. The Hacker culture from which everything we have today in tech arose. Which is the culture that Stallman arguably helped create. The culture which makes this site "Hacker" news, is one in which doing something interesting is more important than anything else. The presupposition from this more iconoclastic view is: why aren't you doing something interesting? Adhering to norms because it's the "safe" thing to do is the true aberrant behavior. It's a shame too since now of all points in human history we need more radical thinkers and people who are willing to question the status quo, which btw is inherently unsustainable. But maybe it's this fear that leads us rushing back to deep moral systems likes religious fantastics when their faith is questioned.

throwawayjava 7y ago
> We are, sadly, entering a new age of conformity We have always been in an "age of conformity". For example, Obergefell v. Hodges was decided less than 5 years ago. There are still children who are homeless because they aren't sexually conformant. What is changing is not the degree to which society demands conformity. All that is change is who has to conform, and the standards to which they have to conform. Conformity is not bad. Abstaining from wanton murder and theft is conforming to social norms. What matters is whether the norms are good ones. > The Hacker culture from which everything we have today in tech arose. This is a nice origin fantasy, but it's really not true. The uniforms at DoD and the suits at IBM/Intel/AT&T/Xerox/etc. played a huge role in envisioning, organizing, and bankrolling all that work. Also, that work was done by of hundreds of thousands of white-collar and blue-collar professionals. Many of those engineers and technicians were not self-described "hackers" or "nerds". A lot of them contributed by digging ditches and climbing polls. A lot of them were brilliant engineers who at 5pm turned off the computer screen, went home to their families, and didn't think about work until 9am the next day. > The culture which makes this site "Hacker" news, is one in which doing something interesting is more important than anything else... why aren't you doing something interesting? Because some times boring things are important to help society function or to make money. Examples: Attending city council/school board meetings. Being a middle man. Running warehouses. Selling advertisements. Giving away vaccines and moz nets. And honestly 99% of other work done by companies, nonprofits, and active citizens. Including software companies. Boring, not interesting, and yet to varying degrees important. In fact, some of those things are super interesting (ad auctions, for example, are wonderful fun for math nerds) but not nearly as important as the boring things (passing out vaccines or setting up moz nets or taking minutes at a city council meeting -- seriously, not fun). > But maybe it's this fear that leads us rushing back to deep moral systems likes religious fantastics when their faith is questioned. We all have our convictions and stories in which we find meaning. We're all unreasonable defensive about those stories we tell ourselves. ...In fact, on that note, one more thing to add to the list of boring things that we for some reason feel the need to do: political arguments on a news forum that financially benefits VC by tapping into a fantastical ethos about the origin of modern computing. Now, tell me no one here is going to get unreasonably defensive about that ;-)

jameslk 7y ago

Stallman resigned from MIT and the FSF. So why are we still talking about it? It's not going change any of this or exonerate his name. You only have one reputation and once it's damaged, it's very hard to recover. So all this talk is just arguments on the internet at this point. Time to move on. Also, I realize this is an unpopular opinion here because of the lack of awareness that most outside this community don't even know who Stallman is nor care and can't accept they're wasting their time on this topic. The more he's talked about with regards to this controversy, the more he will be known for this issue and less about the things he fought over the decades for the free software movement. Good job everyone.

noobermin 7y ago
If it's over then what pain does it cause HN to discuss it here?
- jameslk 7y ago
  This article and thread further alienates those in this community who are affected by Stallman's comments and pushes them away. While providing no value other than creating a venue for others to talk past each other and upvoting/downvoting those who take their side. In other words, it's politics.

twblalock 7y ago

His job, as the head of the FSF and GNU, was to represent those organizations to the public, which includes many people who don't know him. Being judged and vilified by people who don't know you is what happens to public figures. If your behavior brings disrepute on the organizations you represent, you should let those organizations find different representatives. RMS was right to step down. He is still free to say whatever he wants as an individual without damaging the reputations of GNU and the FSF.

DocTomoe 7y ago
I agree. That's why I cancelled my recurring donations to the FSF after this debacle. There are other, more worthy causes than an organization which considers public opinion to be more important than integrity, an organization that essentially axes it's central figure because of some internet trolls.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  Same here.
ng12 7y ago
The issue is that Stallman has been this way for decades -- he's always been outspoken, nitpicky, and aggressively libertarian -- and FSF has flourished under his sole leadership. It's only in 2019 that internet culture and clickbait media have made it a "problem". To me, that is significantly more harmful than any of the wonky things RMS sometimes says.
- dirtybird04 7y ago
  I don't know or care much about Stallman and the situation, don't really have a dog in this fight. What I do know is that "It's been like this for decades" is never an appropriate defense.
  - ng12 7y ago
    Not "it's been like this" -- he, a human person, has been like this. In fact he's been voluntarily blogging his political thoughts for decades (which, again, in 2019 is an incredibly dangerous thing to do). So the question is this: if he's had his outspoken opinions on controversial topics for decades, there's no evidence of his opinions actually causing any real tangible harm, and under his tenure the FSF has been a runaway success -- why is it an issue now?

nautilus12 7y ago

I guess we've just reached the point as a society where we've decided that we enjoy the professional bloodlust of burning anyone at the stake that isn't a paradigm of behavior to leave any room for forgiveness. Welcome to the new Salem.

parasubvert 7y ago
Oh, bring me the smelling salts. It is no such thing. RMS is still alive. And in charge of GNU. He lost some privileged positions because society has decided that it's time for women get powerful.

paulproteus 7y ago

> I do not excuse Richard Stallman’s remarks, nor do I challenge the actions of both the MIT Media Lab and the FSF for terminating his positions with them. It wasn't the Media Lab with which Richard had a position; it was MIT CSAIL.

lilyball 7y ago

> As an active feminist and one who has witnessed much bad behavior among tech CEOs over the past 30 years, I think that accusing Richard Stallman of not supporting women, gays, or any other minority group is false. Look at his real history — […] — but his record in helping to give everyone in the world access to free software. What kind of bullshit is this? Stallman's advocacy for open source in no way whatsoever makes him a champion for women, gay people, or any other marginalized group, and does not even remotely excuse his behavior. Sylvia, calling yourself a feminist doesn't actually make you one.

emiliobumachar 7y ago
She has reasonably solid feminist credentials, which she presented up front, probably to preempt accusations of sexism. No True Scotsman would ever support Stallman?
- lilyball 7y ago
  "Feminist credentials" aren't really a thing. It's not like there's an organization you can carry a card for.
ng12 7y ago
That's a good question, how is it decided? Is there a tribunal?

haolez 7y ago

Kind of meta, but I don’t think Hacker News downvotes are being used as intended in this thread. There are a lot of well constructed arguments exposed in a polite manner that are downvoted.

mattsfrey 7y ago
lmao, welcome to hn comment section circa 2012+

unityByFreedom 7y ago

Perhaps this author is unaware of the number of statements Stallman has made regarding pedophilia on his website over the years [1]. If RMS has changed his point of view, he can go back to those parts of his blog and add an update. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=pedophile+site%3Astallman.org https://www.google.com/search?q=pedophile+site%3Astallman.or...

NiekvdMaas 7y ago
100% agreed. This is one of the worst examples: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... I'm all for freedom of speech, but I don't see how people can defend these kind of opinions he's advocating.
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  Yeah. It's not clear to me whether or not RMS still believes these things. He may need time to collect himself. In the mean time, I don't understand blog posts like this one that completely gloss over his past statements which remain the same without further comment.
  - kragen 7y ago
    He has said that he changed his mind.
    - unityByFreedom 7y ago
      Are you referring to this brief statement [1]? That does not pass as sincere in my book. Good luck to him in the future, I hope he gets everything sorted. [1] https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe...
      - 7y ago

Mugwort 7y ago

Most programmers aren't worth even a pimple on Richard Stallman's ass. Most people too.

thekevan 7y ago

Stallman came up with a great idea, got it started but has been a toxic personality in the community. The open source movement was created because of his involvement, yet flourished in spite of his personality.

bronz 7y ago

whether or not all the accusations are based in reality, i am glad to see this happening to richard. all he did was bake his own personal political beliefs into popular software. it was totally unnecessary and counter-productive. people like to worship open-source people like richard and sdr. i dont get it. he was also a huge autistic asshole. the more i think about it the more i dislike him. on his personal website he has pages about why not to use popular services like airbnb. one of his reasons is because they use proprietary code in their app. another it because you have to register with identifying information. hes an annoying zealot who will literally never be satisfied. a person who draws purpose from the act of contradicting and belittling other people. a person who has no sensibility whatsoever when it comes to society, the big picture or the subtle insights of social grace. good fucking riddance.

mirimir 7y ago

Also: https://medium.com/@richardsmith_76348/richard-stallman-was-framed-and-misquoted-c76302bdebe https://medium.com/@richardsmith_76348/richard-stallman-was-...

xenadu02 7y ago

There's a rule: If Stallman is invited to speak at your conference under NO circumstances should you allow him to stay at your place, nor at the home of anyone you care about or even don't outright hate (ask Miguel de Icaza about it some time). Why does that rule exist? Because he has, many times, shown up and refused to leave for weeks. He brings random flings back to your place. He refuses to shower or observe basic hygiene. He's the worst houseguest imaginable. Hell, why did VA Linux send an email all female employees letting them know when Stallman would be visiting so they could work from home or make themselves scarce? For that matter, how many people (especially women) dropped out of MIT, moved to another major, or left the lab because of Stallman? Why does Stallman feel entitled to abuse other people's hospitality? Why does he get to do as he pleases? Why are his feelings and his experiences the only ones that matter? I think this has bearing on the current issues: Stallman has been protected by those around him. He was protected by Minsky early on. This taught him that he could do as he pleased without consequences. He was never forced to learn socially acceptable behavior. You sometimes see the same thing with child stars or pampered celebrities: No one ever tells them "no". They never face real consequences for their actions. Everyone around them makes excuses, either because they look up to them or because they're the gravy train. Things escalate until a) they cross the line so badly they can't weasel out of it or b) some "straw that broke the camel's back" situation arises. In situation "a" the person is often confused and bewildered because they've done as they pleased for a very long time. They don't understand why the current situation should be different. In situation "b" people often focus on the trivialities of the current incident, ignoring everything that came before it. Am I saying Stallman should have been run out on a rail early on? Not at all... but Minsky shouldn't have excused Stallman's behavior. The first time Stallman cornered a woman in an elevator at MIT and blocked her from leaving Minsky should have, at the least, sat him down and said "stop it or you are out". We do a great disservice by sweeping complaints under the rug or excusing "geniuses". Bad behavior doesn't usually magically clear up, it tends to get worse over time as people learn they are the chosen ones and won't be questioned. Does Stallman deserve the hate he's getting as a result of some posts to an email list? I don't know. Should Stallman have been kicked off the FSF board a long time ago? Absolutely.

kragen 7y ago
> The first time Stallman cornered a woman in an elevator at MIT and blocked her from leaving Is this a thing that happened or something you just thought up? I've talked to women who worked with Stallman at MIT and complained to me about ways he hit on them and they never mentioned anything like that.

johnny22 7y ago

Anybody else surprised this is posted on medium of all places? I'm surprised Stallman would agree to such a thing.

jasonvorhe 7y ago
So he should get to decide where is name is being mentioned? As if it wasn't enough that he's dictating which video streaming codec is used for his talks.

hota_mazi 7y ago

> Look at his real history — not the sign about welcoming “hot ladies” on his MIT Media lab office door, which someone else wrote as a joke and which he removed but not before someone took a photo of it — but his record in helping to give everyone in the world access to free software. He has truly made our world a better, more free place. Just because someone did good things doesn't automatically make the bad things he said or did go away. This is a very dangerous position to hold. Stallman has an established record going back more than ten years of saying despicable things about women and children and the only reason why this reckoning didn't happen to him until today is because people like the author of this article gave him a pass for philosophical reasons. She is part of the problem and one of the reasons why women are having such a hard time in the industry today.

dependenttypes 7y ago
> Just because someone did good things doesn't automatically make the bad things he said or did go away This is not what your quote says. > Stallman has an established record going back more than ten years of saying despicable things about women and children I would be interested to see them. > She is part of the problem and one of the reasons why women are having such a hard time in the industry today. This is a very bold claim, would you happen to have anything to base it off other than her personal opinions that she expressed about Stallman?
virgilp 7y ago
> She is part of the problem and one of the reasons why women are having such a hard time in the industry today. Yes. She should be fired for this opinion... though perhaps that would be too lenient, given how much suffering her opinion caused? > saying despicable things I miss the good old times when saying despicable things about our lord and savior would get you a well-deserved bonfire.

PHGamer 7y ago

even if he is an asshole, he has the right to say what he wants. I sorta get FSF ditching him because linux is going corporate (which I am very much against). but MIT (and western schools in general) are no longer places where free speech is allowed and that is the greater atrocity.

jasonvorhe 7y ago
MIT first needs to clean up the shit show they've allowed to foster in their midst with regards to taking funding from convicted rapists of adolescent girls first.

zby 7y ago

We want our public figures to be predictable. When we lived in small bands we knew the peoples our whole life and we could build a really good model of their thinking. Later when we had bigger polities, we did not have that much information about the leaders. Now we know all of what they say and do and any time - but what is reported are only the deviations from the expectations - in our perception they are not balanced by the whole daily predictable lifes. To be public figure now means to be a good actor, understand what the public thinks about you and constantly adjust your behaviour to fit in and never be caught on any deviation from the public figure image. Stallman is not good at adjusting behaviour. He is still pretty predictable in the geek culture - but for the wider public he is really weird. See also this blogchain: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/series/predictable-identities/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/series/predictable-identities/ And in particular this quote from another article: "The perception of creepiness is a response to the ambiguity of threat. […] While they may not be overtly threatening, individuals who display unusual patterns of nonverbal behavior, odd emotional responses or highly distinctive physical characteristics are outside the norm, and by definition unpredictable." from https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2016.03.003 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.20...

cable2600 7y ago

They took his words out of context: https://medium.com/@richardsmith_76348/richard-stallman-was-framed-and-misquoted-c76302bdebe https://medium.com/@richardsmith_76348/richard-stallman-was-... https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/?source=post_page-----c76302bdebe---------------------- https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stal...

_nalply 7y ago

I met Mr Stallman only once, so I don't know him, but remembering this only encounter I feel that he is not one of those humans who wield power expertly. So he fell. I think this is like a putsch. We will see what happens with GNU the next ten years. I don't mean to exculpate nor denounce him, just point out that he is different.

yread 7y ago

So where are the blogs defending him written by all the women there were included in his culture of tolerance? I would upvote that!

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
DoreenMichele 7y ago
Even if women who worked with him feel that way, you are highly unlikely to see such. Women are generally more vulnerable than men. Other women will tear apart a "traitor" to the feminist cause. Defending someone who is the focus of a metaphorical lynch mob almost never helps them and frequently means you are next.

jasonvorhe 7y ago

The amount of people still defending m and claiming that this is merely mob justice is shocking.

airbreather 7y ago

I am finding the endless outrage about thoughts to be extremely tedious, I can see where the snowflake terminology came from. At least reserve outrage for actions, thought police are Stasi style.

bechampion 7y ago

I met him around 2002 , he was nuts already . He says shit he would've gotten away in the early days of the internet but he doesn't now . He hasn't change much to be fair it's just now what he says gets echoed in social networks.

coleifer 7y ago

His life's been ruined by a shrieking Twitter mob. Who's next? These sjws are complete parasites. They never fork. Just go after vulnerable people at the top and insinuate their way into established institutions.

amai 7y ago

At least Stallman resigned himself. Other presidents are doing much more horrible things and do not plan to resign ever.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]