9 ms·

Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation. I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking the organizers to turn the hous

Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation. I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with. I saw how many women immediately got up and left in response to that, and I don't blame them for doing so. I would've done the same, if I'd felt myself to be one of the people Stallman made a joke about maybe wanting to fuck. (And, if I hadn't thought it might be worth sticking around for the Q&A and a chance at a callout. Some goober ended up yanking the mike cord, which was fine. A lot of people thanked me for saying what I did before he got to me.) How likely do you think it is that those women had any inclination to contribute to free software after an experience like that? How likely do you think it is that I did - knowing that to do so would associate me with people who had no problem with a figurehead whose behavior was so completely out of step with modern mores, and so discouraging to such a wide segment of the community? Since then, I've corresponded with others more familiar than I with RMS, and from that correspondence I've learned that this kind of thing was in no way out of character for him - I don't know firsthand, because that was the last RMS talk I chose to attend or will attend in future, and decided no longer to donate my time, money, or support to any FSF project for as long as he remained chairman. I don't want to be associated with behavior like that, and I most certainly don't want to enable it - both for its own sake, and because where the culture tolerates something like that, there's reason to suspect it will tolerate worse, besides. I'm glad that so many people who have such a strong hand in making FSF and the GNU Project what it is today - far more of a hand than RMS has had in many years now - have chosen to speak so well on the subject. I know their statement has elicited a torrent of garbage. I hope they won't let it distract them from the fact that they're doing the right thing.

zenexer 7y ago
This is a pivotal piece of information. I’ve been following the recent RMS developments fairly closely, but I was entirely unaware that he was pulling this sort of nonsense. I was under the impression all the fuss was over a philosophical yet taboo series of statements he made in regards to human trafficking and pedophilia. Why am I not hearing about these encounters? These are the voices I want to hear. Why have these stories gained no traction until now? Why does it take a scandal to bring these issues to light? Am I just living under a rock, or is there an overarching issue with OSS culture that extends far beyond Stallman? I’m incredibly disappointed that I’m only discovering this deep in HN comments.
- jlokier 7y ago
  Much of what is being said are opinions or interpretation not facts. And because they are controversial, and often connected to trauma,, people don't tend to broadcast them until a "crisis" like the current one encourages sharing stories and makes it safer to do so. But view the video linked to in child comments to the one you're replying to, and draw your own conclusion about what RMS actually said and the context in which it was said. My view is that the comment you're replying to describes an incident that grossly mischaracterises what actually occurred. There were problems, and there was an inadvisable sexual joke, and probably some women were probably put off contributing to OSS, and it echoed some aspects of misogyny taking place in the rest of their lives - workplace, home, everywhere. Consider, at the same event, the person you replied to admits that someone thought what they were saying was problematic too (thus the yanking of the mic from their hand). So, at very least, there were strongly differing views at the time. I think it's good that people, on occasions of heightened awareness like this, feel able to share their presumably long history of traumatic and unwelcoming experiences, in OSS and in society elsewhere. The shit women (among others) have had to endure, and still do, continues to be awful, both in OSS and elsewhere. But it's terrible that the same phenomenon involves people empowering themselves in groups by gathering to destroy other people from more or less the same "side", when the social errors being committed by each person are not that different from each other, and what I'd call the "real criminals" (rapists, abusive partners, abusive bosses etc) are strangely not targetted in the debate. For a movement that is supposed to be based on high principles of inclusion, empowerment, and social justice, it's tragic to those principles made weak and breaking down, because people don't know how to apply them in situations like this.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    I like that you want to talk about the danger of tendentious interpretation! I also like that you'd clearly rather skate by on "problematic" than talk about how, as can be seen in the part 2 of the video you linked - the only other video I posted on that account, so should be easy to find! - my callout in the Q&A had to do with RMS's "get saved or fry in hell" contempt for ordinary users who prefer software they can use, and the way that GNU software's typically execrable usability and accessibility militates directly against its appeal to the nontechnical, goal-oriented wider userbase that RMS, in his talk, by turns spoke of wanting to attract, and lavished with contempt. That was what got my mic cord yanked. That was what the people who thanked me after, were thanking me for saying. I understand why that happened, and I understand why you might not want to talk about it, but don't you think it's a little inconsistent to complain about tendentious interpretations in the same breath in which you utter one?
teddyh 7y ago
That story is, quite frankly, incredible. I would like to hear more accurate quotes and confirmation from additional sources.
abstractartist 7y ago
They did not have a video? This is the first I'm hearing of this, in the blur of stories. No video?
abstractartist 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw here is the video where RMS asks for the house lights to be raised. You have mischaracterized his statements and the whole situation.
- kelsolaar 7y ago
  What is the particular time in the video when he asked that? Edit: About the 6:20 mark.
jlokier 7y ago
> "he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with" There's video. This alleged event occurs at about 6:11 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw I think your words mean the opposite of what RMS actually said. So much for justice. Your words: "so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with." RMS's actual words (speaking to a darkened room where he can't see anyone & conference organisers are having trouble getting their projector working, so he has to improvise to fill the time): "And I always like to be able to see the people I'm talking to but it's so dark in here I can't see you. Now, I mean, I might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you but that's not what we're here for. Uh, so if it's possible to increase the light on the audience please?" That's poorly judged joke/banter: If there's one lesson we're learning from all this, it is avoid jokes that are likely to be misunderstood. I don't doubt that some women got up and left, and were put off contributing. Someone should have had a word with him about how it was received. My guess is RMS would be mortified if he thought people, such as yourself, were misunderstanding his words to that gross extent. Frankly, given the severity of the accusations, what you have called him out for on this occasion looks to me like a brazen outright lie on your part, as evidenced by the video to correct the record.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Yeah, I actually posted the video you linked, transcoded from the con's DVD of the talk - so it's hardly as if I'm afraid of its content being known. It's a two-parter, by the way, and the Q&A is in part 2. My commentary is timestamped in the description; if you haven't yet seen it, you're really missing out on a great opportunity to call me names. You're welcome, of course, to maintain whatever interpretation you like of the events under discussion. But the video doesn't show the 20 or so women who got up and left immediately after he said that. You've yet to offer a compelling argument for why I, or anyone, should rely on your interpretation rather than theirs.
  - 68plus57equals5 7y ago
    You almost got me convinced by your alleging RMS asked organizers "to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with". I thought, whoa, that sounds not good, bad joke, nothing criminal, but it definitely isn't a good look. However the moment I found the video with the actual quote and the extent of your mischaracterization of the situation I reverted back to my former opinion on the whole issue (which is very close to "this is witchhunt"). Nevertheless I feel grateful to you for reinforcing me in the belief one should never ever trust any accusation without a concrete proof. I'm deeply indebted to you for this important lesson.
abstractartist 7y ago
I find it interesting that you told this story without linking to the video, in light of admitting you posted the video itself. Curiously you do not admit having posted it until called out on the discrepancy between your paraphrase and the actual words RMS spoke. You paraphrased his words even though it would have taken seconds to get the (utterly different) exact wording from your own video. I think you are deliberately spreading misinformation. An honest commentator would have posted the exact wording and the link, especially if he is the source of the very video in question.
- throwanem 7y ago
  I find it interesting that you have no stronger argument in support of your own interpretation than to argue that all others, including mine, must be lies with some scurrilous ulterior motive behind them. Again, I understand that you regard this statement of RMS's - and the many similar statements attested by others - as innocuous, and any interpretation otherwise to be false and motivated by a witch-hunting desire to tear down a great man for no better reason than because his greatness makes others feel small. You've been quite clear about that. You haven't done a good job arguing for it, though. You reiterate the same unsupported assertions that you've already made, and in between times you sling accusations at people who disagree with you - all the while hiding behind anonymity, lest you risk having your behavior reflect poorly on you - in the hopes that those following along will be suckered into mistaking such personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims for an argument. You're welcome to do that, of course, if it doesn't embarrass you. I'd hope that it would, but I suppose the concealment of anonymity helps with that, too.
  - abstractartist 7y ago
    Nonsense. I did not say I think his statements in the video were innocuous. I (and others) pointed out that you misrepresented his statements. I've said basically nothing else with this account and all of the handful of comments I've made with it are about this one issue of you misrepresenting your video.
    - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

zenexer 7y ago

This is a pivotal piece of information. I’ve been following the recent RMS developments fairly closely, but I was entirely unaware that he was pulling this sort of nonsense. I was under the impression all the fuss was over a philosophical yet taboo series of statements he made in regards to human trafficking and pedophilia. Why am I not hearing about these encounters? These are the voices I want to hear. Why have these stories gained no traction until now? Why does it take a scandal to bring these issues to light? Am I just living under a rock, or is there an overarching issue with OSS culture that extends far beyond Stallman? I’m incredibly disappointed that I’m only discovering this deep in HN comments.

jlokier 7y ago
Much of what is being said are opinions or interpretation not facts. And because they are controversial, and often connected to trauma,, people don't tend to broadcast them until a "crisis" like the current one encourages sharing stories and makes it safer to do so. But view the video linked to in child comments to the one you're replying to, and draw your own conclusion about what RMS actually said and the context in which it was said. My view is that the comment you're replying to describes an incident that grossly mischaracterises what actually occurred. There were problems, and there was an inadvisable sexual joke, and probably some women were probably put off contributing to OSS, and it echoed some aspects of misogyny taking place in the rest of their lives - workplace, home, everywhere. Consider, at the same event, the person you replied to admits that someone thought what they were saying was problematic too (thus the yanking of the mic from their hand). So, at very least, there were strongly differing views at the time. I think it's good that people, on occasions of heightened awareness like this, feel able to share their presumably long history of traumatic and unwelcoming experiences, in OSS and in society elsewhere. The shit women (among others) have had to endure, and still do, continues to be awful, both in OSS and elsewhere. But it's terrible that the same phenomenon involves people empowering themselves in groups by gathering to destroy other people from more or less the same "side", when the social errors being committed by each person are not that different from each other, and what I'd call the "real criminals" (rapists, abusive partners, abusive bosses etc) are strangely not targetted in the debate. For a movement that is supposed to be based on high principles of inclusion, empowerment, and social justice, it's tragic to those principles made weak and breaking down, because people don't know how to apply them in situations like this.
- throwanem 7y ago
  I like that you want to talk about the danger of tendentious interpretation! I also like that you'd clearly rather skate by on "problematic" than talk about how, as can be seen in the part 2 of the video you linked - the only other video I posted on that account, so should be easy to find! - my callout in the Q&A had to do with RMS's "get saved or fry in hell" contempt for ordinary users who prefer software they can use, and the way that GNU software's typically execrable usability and accessibility militates directly against its appeal to the nontechnical, goal-oriented wider userbase that RMS, in his talk, by turns spoke of wanting to attract, and lavished with contempt. That was what got my mic cord yanked. That was what the people who thanked me after, were thanking me for saying. I understand why that happened, and I understand why you might not want to talk about it, but don't you think it's a little inconsistent to complain about tendentious interpretations in the same breath in which you utter one?

teddyh 7y ago

That story is, quite frankly, incredible. I would like to hear more accurate quotes and confirmation from additional sources.

abstractartist 7y ago

They did not have a video? This is the first I'm hearing of this, in the blur of stories. No video?

abstractartist 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw here is the video where RMS asks for the house lights to be raised. You have mischaracterized his statements and the whole situation.

kelsolaar 7y ago
What is the particular time in the video when he asked that? Edit: About the 6:20 mark.

jlokier 7y ago

> "he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with" There's video. This alleged event occurs at about 6:11 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw I think your words mean the opposite of what RMS actually said. So much for justice. Your words: "so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with." RMS's actual words (speaking to a darkened room where he can't see anyone & conference organisers are having trouble getting their projector working, so he has to improvise to fill the time): "And I always like to be able to see the people I'm talking to but it's so dark in here I can't see you. Now, I mean, I might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you but that's not what we're here for. Uh, so if it's possible to increase the light on the audience please?" That's poorly judged joke/banter: If there's one lesson we're learning from all this, it is avoid jokes that are likely to be misunderstood. I don't doubt that some women got up and left, and were put off contributing. Someone should have had a word with him about how it was received. My guess is RMS would be mortified if he thought people, such as yourself, were misunderstanding his words to that gross extent. Frankly, given the severity of the accusations, what you have called him out for on this occasion looks to me like a brazen outright lie on your part, as evidenced by the video to correct the record.

throwanem 7y ago
Yeah, I actually posted the video you linked, transcoded from the con's DVD of the talk - so it's hardly as if I'm afraid of its content being known. It's a two-parter, by the way, and the Q&A is in part 2. My commentary is timestamped in the description; if you haven't yet seen it, you're really missing out on a great opportunity to call me names. You're welcome, of course, to maintain whatever interpretation you like of the events under discussion. But the video doesn't show the 20 or so women who got up and left immediately after he said that. You've yet to offer a compelling argument for why I, or anyone, should rely on your interpretation rather than theirs.
- 68plus57equals5 7y ago
  You almost got me convinced by your alleging RMS asked organizers "to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with". I thought, whoa, that sounds not good, bad joke, nothing criminal, but it definitely isn't a good look. However the moment I found the video with the actual quote and the extent of your mischaracterization of the situation I reverted back to my former opinion on the whole issue (which is very close to "this is witchhunt"). Nevertheless I feel grateful to you for reinforcing me in the belief one should never ever trust any accusation without a concrete proof. I'm deeply indebted to you for this important lesson.

abstractartist 7y ago

I find it interesting that you told this story without linking to the video, in light of admitting you posted the video itself. Curiously you do not admit having posted it until called out on the discrepancy between your paraphrase and the actual words RMS spoke. You paraphrased his words even though it would have taken seconds to get the (utterly different) exact wording from your own video. I think you are deliberately spreading misinformation. An honest commentator would have posted the exact wording and the link, especially if he is the source of the very video in question.

throwanem 7y ago
I find it interesting that you have no stronger argument in support of your own interpretation than to argue that all others, including mine, must be lies with some scurrilous ulterior motive behind them. Again, I understand that you regard this statement of RMS's - and the many similar statements attested by others - as innocuous, and any interpretation otherwise to be false and motivated by a witch-hunting desire to tear down a great man for no better reason than because his greatness makes others feel small. You've been quite clear about that. You haven't done a good job arguing for it, though. You reiterate the same unsupported assertions that you've already made, and in between times you sling accusations at people who disagree with you - all the while hiding behind anonymity, lest you risk having your behavior reflect poorly on you - in the hopes that those following along will be suckered into mistaking such personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims for an argument. You're welcome to do that, of course, if it doesn't embarrass you. I'd hope that it would, but I suppose the concealment of anonymity helps with that, too.
- abstractartist 7y ago
  Nonsense. I did not say I think his statements in the video were innocuous. I (and others) pointed out that you misrepresented his statements. I've said basically nothing else with this account and all of the handful of comments I've made with it are about this one issue of you misrepresenting your video.
  - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]