6 ms·

Stallman resigned in the face of people who had always known who he was being faced with the reality that the rest of the world also knew. The motivation wasn't

by mjg59 7y ago

Stallman resigned in the face of people who had always known who he was being faced with the reality that the rest of the world also knew. The motivation wasn't the misquotes of his already abhorrent argument. (source: former FSF board member)

lolc 7y ago
Why do you consider his argument abhorrent before it was misquoted?
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  maybe because without Stallman and with a weaker FSF foundation Google, where he works, will benefit even more...
- mjg59 7y ago
  Because attempting to redefine "sexual assault" such that it only applies to cases that involve physical violence is an attempt to reduce the perception of the seriousness of the crime
  - lolc 7y ago
    It can be taken that way. But if "sexually" is omitted from "sexually assaulted" a statement can easily be misunderstood. If you add in the context that there was no direct accusation of sexual assault by the victim towards Minsky, I do find reasonable to talk about how these terms are used. I even understand his argument that these terms best not be used in accusations because there are better ones. I find your interpretation of "an attempt to reduce the perception of the seriousness of the crime" a highly incharitable reading of what he says!
    - meruru 7y ago
      Stallman's position is pretty clearly that we should use precise language always. It seems a pretty impeccable position to me. The only people I can think of who benefit from conflating coercive and non-coercive crimes under the same term are the ones who profit from the confusion.
      - mjg59 7y ago
        The language used was the correct technical term. There's no imprecision in using it.
        meruru 7y ago
        It's unfortunate that the legal definition became broader for the same reason I think the common definition shouldn't. I imagine however that most legislatures get around the issue by having explicit paragraphs establishing harsher punishments for violent rape vs mutually-accepted statutory rape.
    - mjg59 7y ago
      The definition of "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place. Yes, if you change the words used, you end up with an inaccurate statement. Why is that something that needs to be pointed out? Stallman's entire point is that he feels the use of the word "assault" causes people to believe the crime is more serious than he believes it is. Pointing that out isn't uncharitable.
      - meruru 7y ago
        Using the word assault causes people to believe a different thing happened. It says nothing about the gravity of each kind of crime except that they shouldn't be the same. The only reason "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place is because the expression was redefined in the first place to cover two separate things, which is exactly the problem. Stallman called not for redefining "sexual assault" as you put it, but for undoing a redefinition that puts it at odds with how those terms are conventionally used and causes unnecessary confusion.
        mjg59 7y ago
        And "free software" makes people believe that the software costs nothing, but Stallman's position there isn't to suggest that we should always use a different term. Why not?
        meruru 7y ago
        I agree the expression "Free Software" has the same problem. However the alternatives also have some problems. He discusses that here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... (I'm sure you've already read it, but it's always worth a re-read) I'm partial to the term "Libre" myself, though in this case it doesn't matter much, since it's a concept that people aren't familiar with anyway and you have to explain it no matter what word you use.
      - lolc 7y ago
        > Yes, if you change the words used, you end up with an inaccurate statement. Why is that something that needs to be pointed out? Because he is criticizing that exactly this mingling of terms happened! > Pointing that out isn't uncharitable. I'm beginning to feel that you're being willfully incharitable but give you the benefit of doubt that you could be merely misinformed.
  - oska 7y ago
    Quoting Debbie Harry from an interview published just yesterday [1]: > She is similarly dismissive of another horrific incident. In the early 70s, when she and Stein were coming home after a gig, a man followed them and forced them at knifepoint to let him into their apartment. He was looking for drugs and equipment. He tied up Stein, then Harry. Once he had piled up the equipment he was going to take – guitars, Stein’s camera – he raped her on the bed. > In her book, she writes: “I can’t say that I felt a lot of fear. In the end, the stolen guitars hurt me more than the rape.” Can this be true? “Yes,” she says. “I mean, I was angry and I felt victimised. I wasn’t beaten or harmed physically, it was all emotional or mental. Being raped – or fucked – by some stranger against my will at knifepoint, you know …” She pauses and sighs. “It wasn’t a happy moment in my life, but I really, seriously, empathise with women who are beaten. That would be something that [would lead to] emotional ramifications for the rest of my life. But this doesn’t.” > She knows it may seem hard to believe. “It is ludicrous,” she says, “and it is kind of funny that I would say it, but, truly, I wasn’t physically molested. Afterwards, I was with Chris, and I was, you know …” She makes a sound to signal the horror she must have felt. “I went on with my life. But as I say, I wasn’t beaten or assaulted and I think that, coupled with being sexually violated, is truly awful. Then you are really made to feel powerless.” But she was tied up at knifepoint. Didn’t that make her feel powerless? “Yeah. Not the same. It wasn’t for me anyway.” She didn’t have counselling, and says Stein was supportive “and we moved on”. So Debbie Harry is certainly making a distinction here between forced sex alone and forced sex with physical violence. And for her that distinction makes what she suffered less serious than if it had included physical violence. Do you want to discount her opinion too? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/01/debbie-harry-on-heroin-robbery-and-why-she-still-feels-lucky https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/01/debbie-...
lostjohnny 7y ago
source: Google employee. FTFY! That Google, the Ad company threatening user's privacy, abusing user's rights, collecting user's data. The company fined for 5 billion dollars in an anti trust case in EU. The company behind YouTube, fined for 170 million dollars for collecting kids data [1] The company behind Chrome, that recently proposed a change to stop ad blocking extensions from working (did I say they sell ads?) AFAIK Stallman never worked for or at any company the like of Google. Neither did Eben Moglen, who still offers pro bono legal support for free software at the Freedom law center, which he founded. For those that do not know him, Moglen was member of Philip Zimmermann's (PGP creator) defense team. Strangely enough, he was another target of Garret, a couple years ago he declared him "no longer a friend of the FSF". He was already working for Google. [1] https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/youtube-ftc-fine-170-million-coppa-kids-data-1203323004/ https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/youtube-ftc-fine-170-m...
- mjg59 7y ago
  Yes, the Eben Moglen who is suing another free software organisation for trademark infringement, threatened to sue them for copyright infringement under a ludicrous misreading of the relevant license, threatened to ruin the life of an FSF board member, and who was fired by the FSF for briefing against the FSF's interests while being paid by Oracle.
  - satanshomie 7y ago
    Is it better to be paid by Google? p.s.: can you provide the source that says that Moglen was "being paid by Oracle"? We know that in November 2017 you were already working at Google, AKA "being paid by Google". p.p.s.: You said at the time > He later released this position publicly with little co-ordination with the FSF, which was used by (Ubuntu creator) Canonical to justify their shipping ZFS (a filesystem developed originally by Sun Microsystems and now owned by Oracle) in a GPL-violating way And I think you did it to backup your thesis of Moglen "being paid by Oracle". Fact is you either were wrong or lying, Canonical ships OpenZFS [1], which is not owned by Oracle. OpenZFS was born after ZFS was releases as CDDL in 2005 by Sun Microsystems as part of OpenSolaris, Oracle bought Sun Microsystems in 2010. [1] https://ubuntu.com/blog/zfs-is-the-fs-for-containers-in-ubuntu-16-04 https://ubuntu.com/blog/zfs-is-the-fs-for-containers-in-ubun...

by mjg59 7y ago

lolc 7y ago

Why do you consider his argument abhorrent before it was misquoted?

lostjohnny 7y ago
maybe because without Stallman and with a weaker FSF foundation Google, where he works, will benefit even more...
mjg59 7y ago
Because attempting to redefine "sexual assault" such that it only applies to cases that involve physical violence is an attempt to reduce the perception of the seriousness of the crime
- lolc 7y ago
  It can be taken that way. But if "sexually" is omitted from "sexually assaulted" a statement can easily be misunderstood. If you add in the context that there was no direct accusation of sexual assault by the victim towards Minsky, I do find reasonable to talk about how these terms are used. I even understand his argument that these terms best not be used in accusations because there are better ones. I find your interpretation of "an attempt to reduce the perception of the seriousness of the crime" a highly incharitable reading of what he says!
  - meruru 7y ago
    Stallman's position is pretty clearly that we should use precise language always. It seems a pretty impeccable position to me. The only people I can think of who benefit from conflating coercive and non-coercive crimes under the same term are the ones who profit from the confusion.
    - mjg59 7y ago
      The language used was the correct technical term. There's no imprecision in using it.
      - meruru 7y ago
        It's unfortunate that the legal definition became broader for the same reason I think the common definition shouldn't. I imagine however that most legislatures get around the issue by having explicit paragraphs establishing harsher punishments for violent rape vs mutually-accepted statutory rape.
  - mjg59 7y ago
    The definition of "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place. Yes, if you change the words used, you end up with an inaccurate statement. Why is that something that needs to be pointed out? Stallman's entire point is that he feels the use of the word "assault" causes people to believe the crime is more serious than he believes it is. Pointing that out isn't uncharitable.
    - meruru 7y ago
      Using the word assault causes people to believe a different thing happened. It says nothing about the gravity of each kind of crime except that they shouldn't be the same. The only reason "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place is because the expression was redefined in the first place to cover two separate things, which is exactly the problem. Stallman called not for redefining "sexual assault" as you put it, but for undoing a redefinition that puts it at odds with how those terms are conventionally used and causes unnecessary confusion.
      - mjg59 7y ago
        And "free software" makes people believe that the software costs nothing, but Stallman's position there isn't to suggest that we should always use a different term. Why not?
        meruru 7y ago
        I agree the expression "Free Software" has the same problem. However the alternatives also have some problems. He discusses that here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... (I'm sure you've already read it, but it's always worth a re-read) I'm partial to the term "Libre" myself, though in this case it doesn't matter much, since it's a concept that people aren't familiar with anyway and you have to explain it no matter what word you use.
    - lolc 7y ago
      > Yes, if you change the words used, you end up with an inaccurate statement. Why is that something that needs to be pointed out? Because he is criticizing that exactly this mingling of terms happened! > Pointing that out isn't uncharitable. I'm beginning to feel that you're being willfully incharitable but give you the benefit of doubt that you could be merely misinformed.
- oska 7y ago
  Quoting Debbie Harry from an interview published just yesterday [1]: > She is similarly dismissive of another horrific incident. In the early 70s, when she and Stein were coming home after a gig, a man followed them and forced them at knifepoint to let him into their apartment. He was looking for drugs and equipment. He tied up Stein, then Harry. Once he had piled up the equipment he was going to take – guitars, Stein’s camera – he raped her on the bed. > In her book, she writes: “I can’t say that I felt a lot of fear. In the end, the stolen guitars hurt me more than the rape.” Can this be true? “Yes,” she says. “I mean, I was angry and I felt victimised. I wasn’t beaten or harmed physically, it was all emotional or mental. Being raped – or fucked – by some stranger against my will at knifepoint, you know …” She pauses and sighs. “It wasn’t a happy moment in my life, but I really, seriously, empathise with women who are beaten. That would be something that [would lead to] emotional ramifications for the rest of my life. But this doesn’t.” > She knows it may seem hard to believe. “It is ludicrous,” she says, “and it is kind of funny that I would say it, but, truly, I wasn’t physically molested. Afterwards, I was with Chris, and I was, you know …” She makes a sound to signal the horror she must have felt. “I went on with my life. But as I say, I wasn’t beaten or assaulted and I think that, coupled with being sexually violated, is truly awful. Then you are really made to feel powerless.” But she was tied up at knifepoint. Didn’t that make her feel powerless? “Yeah. Not the same. It wasn’t for me anyway.” She didn’t have counselling, and says Stein was supportive “and we moved on”. So Debbie Harry is certainly making a distinction here between forced sex alone and forced sex with physical violence. And for her that distinction makes what she suffered less serious than if it had included physical violence. Do you want to discount her opinion too? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/01/debbie-harry-on-heroin-robbery-and-why-she-still-feels-lucky https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/01/debbie-...

lostjohnny 7y ago

source: Google employee. FTFY! That Google, the Ad company threatening user's privacy, abusing user's rights, collecting user's data. The company fined for 5 billion dollars in an anti trust case in EU. The company behind YouTube, fined for 170 million dollars for collecting kids data [1] The company behind Chrome, that recently proposed a change to stop ad blocking extensions from working (did I say they sell ads?) AFAIK Stallman never worked for or at any company the like of Google. Neither did Eben Moglen, who still offers pro bono legal support for free software at the Freedom law center, which he founded. For those that do not know him, Moglen was member of Philip Zimmermann's (PGP creator) defense team. Strangely enough, he was another target of Garret, a couple years ago he declared him "no longer a friend of the FSF". He was already working for Google. [1] https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/youtube-ftc-fine-170-million-coppa-kids-data-1203323004/ https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/youtube-ftc-fine-170-m...

mjg59 7y ago
Yes, the Eben Moglen who is suing another free software organisation for trademark infringement, threatened to sue them for copyright infringement under a ludicrous misreading of the relevant license, threatened to ruin the life of an FSF board member, and who was fired by the FSF for briefing against the FSF's interests while being paid by Oracle.
- satanshomie 7y ago
  Is it better to be paid by Google? p.s.: can you provide the source that says that Moglen was "being paid by Oracle"? We know that in November 2017 you were already working at Google, AKA "being paid by Google". p.p.s.: You said at the time > He later released this position publicly with little co-ordination with the FSF, which was used by (Ubuntu creator) Canonical to justify their shipping ZFS (a filesystem developed originally by Sun Microsystems and now owned by Oracle) in a GPL-violating way And I think you did it to backup your thesis of Moglen "being paid by Oracle". Fact is you either were wrong or lying, Canonical ships OpenZFS [1], which is not owned by Oracle. OpenZFS was born after ZFS was releases as CDDL in 2005 by Sun Microsystems as part of OpenSolaris, Oracle bought Sun Microsystems in 2010. [1] https://ubuntu.com/blog/zfs-is-the-fs-for-containers-in-ubuntu-16-04 https://ubuntu.com/blog/zfs-is-the-fs-for-containers-in-ubun...