3 ms·

> that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their desire to participate in projects whose leaders engage in it I don't doubt that. And you're righ

by hvis 7y ago

> that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their desire to participate in projects whose leaders engage in it I don't doubt that. And you're right to point that out. You'd be even more right if you didn't exaggerate the words he said while paraphrasing because your version changes the story from "poor taste in jokes alienating women" to basically accusations of sexual harrassment. And a lot of us don't like to see exaggerated accusations toward anybody, but especially given the recent scandal where RMS suffered a lot of misrepresentation and emotional overreactions all over the Internet. Now, the change in leadership (or, to start with, decentralization) might ultimately be a good thing for the GNU project, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat the reputation of the outgoing FSF president with at least some respect. So let's be correct and factual, this will really help discussions like this be more constructive from all sides.

throwanem 7y ago
I'm being as respectful as I can be. For example, I haven't yet raised the point that, the conference having taken place in NYC, an identical comment in the context of employment almost certainly would be considered unlawful sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human Rights Law ([1], cf. also "Some Examples of Sexual Harassment" in [2], provided as an example of sexual harassment information required to be posted as described in [1] and [3]. Note also the hero image in [3], which, while perhaps not a legal document in its own right, is extremely on point for this discussion.) Now, of course, a conference speaker does not typically employ his audience, and I don't argue that RMS is eligible for the civil penalties which, per that statute, may attach to the comment he made. I would nonetheless, in light of this information, find myself somewhat embarrassed to have chosen "it's just a joke, not sexual harassment" as the hill on which I wished to die. I have a great deal of respect for RMS's legacy. For example, had he not invested the effort to bring GNU Emacs into existence, I would almost certainly not now be at the point in my profession and my career where I am; I have found Emacs an invaluable tool for something like a decade, and have no intention of ever replacing it at any time in the future. I own a signed copy of the Emacs 24 manual - bought at that same conference, and signed by RMS himself just a few hours after those events took place. I have no plans to destroy it, as I gather some have done. I was honored, and remain so, that he was willing to sign my book at all. But the respect I cherish for the technical work RMS has done, does not extend to excusing his failures of respectful behavior, or the fashion in which they hinder rather than advance the goals of the GNU Project and the FSF as a whole. Nor does that respect extend to any longer keeping quiet about what he said or about the effect it had. Indeed, I should've spoken up long before now. I understand the grievances of those who would hear no ill of their idol. I hope they'll someday learn to understand that facts don't care about their feelings. [1] http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/title8civilrights/chapter1commissiononhumanrights?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:newyork_ny$anc=JD_T08 http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/... [2] https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/materials/SexHarass_Factsheet.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/materials/Sex... [3] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/sexual-harassment-campaign.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/sexual-harassment-campa...
- hvis 7y ago
  > an identical comment in the context of employment almost certainly would be considered unlawful sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human Rights Law Sorry, I couldn't find the definition for "sexual harrassment" in the first document. And I'm not from US, so maybe we have different expectations for the term. Could you clarify which of the 6 examples in the second document you found pertinent to the story? > had he not invested the effort to bring GNU Emacs into existence, I would almost certainly not now be at the point in my profession and my career where I am Cheers to you from one of the current Emacs developers, then! > Nor does that respect extend to any longer keeping quiet about what he said or about the effect it had. Indeed, I should've spoken up long before now. Maybe you should have. Hopefully not in the way that the current Twitter mob has organized, though. The way the scandal broke out, there's little opportunity now for the stories like this to have an ultimate positive impact, unfortunately. I doubt Richard is going to get a lot of speaking engagements in the near future.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    NYCHRL isn't straightforward in its language, for sure; it's written for lawyers. It's also the legislation that applies in the jurisdiction in which the comment was made. In any case, seeing as RMS is, to all accounts, determinedly heterosexual, I'd say that it falls neatly into the category of "sexist remarks based on gender", the sixth bullet in that second document. Maybe you think that's an unworthy bit of lawyerly ratiocination, but even so, consider that a comment like that would get anyone who made it fired from any tech company with an HR department and an employee base the size of that talk's audience, and for the same reason around which the GNU maintainers' statement revolves. To your last point, I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for some positive impact out of all this, or I wouldn't have said anything even now. I'm not here to try to dogpile the guy; I'm here to talk about how, no matter from whom they originate, comments like this aren't "just jokes", that they aren't harmless, and that there's nothing honorable or worthwhile in defending them or the people who, as in this case, persist in making them past all reasonable expectation or effort of curtailment. I feel like that's worth talking about, if for no other reason than because the man's been regarded as a hero by many, some of whom may really need to be told that there are some aspects of his behavior which are not acceptable, and which they cannot expect to get away with. I'd prefer it if someone like that were to understand why this is the case, and agree that it should be. But I'll settle for someone like that getting the idea that, whatever he may think of this whole idea, he'd better learn to keep his mouth shut instead of saying things that hurt marginalized groups, or else expect to be made sorry. Maybe that sounds harsh to you, I don't know. It sounds harsh to me. Being made fun of for being a woman, or gay, or a person of color, or Jewish, or trans, or disabled, or... - that's a hell of a lot harsher, and it normalizes and, as is amply exemplified in history both recent and otherwise, encourages behavior that's far harsher still - discrimination, exclusion, robberies, beatings, rapes, murders. That sort of behavior, I'm absolutely fine with being harsh in an effort to dissuade. Nobody gets to choose to be - or not to be - a woman, or gay, or of color, or Jewish, or trans, or disabled, or part of any of the other axes of marginalization in our societies. Everyone, though, has the power to choose what they say. I want people to choose wisely. If their native empathy doesn't suffice them as cause to do so, I have no problem in principle or in practice with the fear of punishment taking its place. That, after all, is the tool societies ultimately use to discourage behaviors they regard as unacceptable. What our societies find acceptable is changing. I understand that some people really don't care for that. But, again, facts don't care about their feelings. And when we have the US Supreme Court considering whether to explicitly exclude LGBTQ people from civil rights protections, and Germany's AfD frightening Jewish people into hiding their ethnicity - when those aren't even the worst examples you can find, just the first two that came off the top of my head - it's getting awfully late in the day to take a softly-softly approach.

by hvis 7y ago

throwanem 7y ago

I'm being as respectful as I can be. For example, I haven't yet raised the point that, the conference having taken place in NYC, an identical comment in the context of employment almost certainly would be considered unlawful sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human Rights Law ([1], cf. also "Some Examples of Sexual Harassment" in [2], provided as an example of sexual harassment information required to be posted as described in [1] and [3]. Note also the hero image in [3], which, while perhaps not a legal document in its own right, is extremely on point for this discussion.) Now, of course, a conference speaker does not typically employ his audience, and I don't argue that RMS is eligible for the civil penalties which, per that statute, may attach to the comment he made. I would nonetheless, in light of this information, find myself somewhat embarrassed to have chosen "it's just a joke, not sexual harassment" as the hill on which I wished to die. I have a great deal of respect for RMS's legacy. For example, had he not invested the effort to bring GNU Emacs into existence, I would almost certainly not now be at the point in my profession and my career where I am; I have found Emacs an invaluable tool for something like a decade, and have no intention of ever replacing it at any time in the future. I own a signed copy of the Emacs 24 manual - bought at that same conference, and signed by RMS himself just a few hours after those events took place. I have no plans to destroy it, as I gather some have done. I was honored, and remain so, that he was willing to sign my book at all. But the respect I cherish for the technical work RMS has done, does not extend to excusing his failures of respectful behavior, or the fashion in which they hinder rather than advance the goals of the GNU Project and the FSF as a whole. Nor does that respect extend to any longer keeping quiet about what he said or about the effect it had. Indeed, I should've spoken up long before now. I understand the grievances of those who would hear no ill of their idol. I hope they'll someday learn to understand that facts don't care about their feelings. [1] http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/title8civilrights/chapter1commissiononhumanrights?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:newyork_ny$anc=JD_T08 http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/... [2] https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/materials/SexHarass_Factsheet.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/materials/Sex... [3] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/sexual-harassment-campaign.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/sexual-harassment-campa...

hvis 7y ago
> an identical comment in the context of employment almost certainly would be considered unlawful sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human Rights Law Sorry, I couldn't find the definition for "sexual harrassment" in the first document. And I'm not from US, so maybe we have different expectations for the term. Could you clarify which of the 6 examples in the second document you found pertinent to the story? > had he not invested the effort to bring GNU Emacs into existence, I would almost certainly not now be at the point in my profession and my career where I am Cheers to you from one of the current Emacs developers, then! > Nor does that respect extend to any longer keeping quiet about what he said or about the effect it had. Indeed, I should've spoken up long before now. Maybe you should have. Hopefully not in the way that the current Twitter mob has organized, though. The way the scandal broke out, there's little opportunity now for the stories like this to have an ultimate positive impact, unfortunately. I doubt Richard is going to get a lot of speaking engagements in the near future.
- throwanem 7y ago
  NYCHRL isn't straightforward in its language, for sure; it's written for lawyers. It's also the legislation that applies in the jurisdiction in which the comment was made. In any case, seeing as RMS is, to all accounts, determinedly heterosexual, I'd say that it falls neatly into the category of "sexist remarks based on gender", the sixth bullet in that second document. Maybe you think that's an unworthy bit of lawyerly ratiocination, but even so, consider that a comment like that would get anyone who made it fired from any tech company with an HR department and an employee base the size of that talk's audience, and for the same reason around which the GNU maintainers' statement revolves. To your last point, I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for some positive impact out of all this, or I wouldn't have said anything even now. I'm not here to try to dogpile the guy; I'm here to talk about how, no matter from whom they originate, comments like this aren't "just jokes", that they aren't harmless, and that there's nothing honorable or worthwhile in defending them or the people who, as in this case, persist in making them past all reasonable expectation or effort of curtailment. I feel like that's worth talking about, if for no other reason than because the man's been regarded as a hero by many, some of whom may really need to be told that there are some aspects of his behavior which are not acceptable, and which they cannot expect to get away with. I'd prefer it if someone like that were to understand why this is the case, and agree that it should be. But I'll settle for someone like that getting the idea that, whatever he may think of this whole idea, he'd better learn to keep his mouth shut instead of saying things that hurt marginalized groups, or else expect to be made sorry. Maybe that sounds harsh to you, I don't know. It sounds harsh to me. Being made fun of for being a woman, or gay, or a person of color, or Jewish, or trans, or disabled, or... - that's a hell of a lot harsher, and it normalizes and, as is amply exemplified in history both recent and otherwise, encourages behavior that's far harsher still - discrimination, exclusion, robberies, beatings, rapes, murders. That sort of behavior, I'm absolutely fine with being harsh in an effort to dissuade. Nobody gets to choose to be - or not to be - a woman, or gay, or of color, or Jewish, or trans, or disabled, or part of any of the other axes of marginalization in our societies. Everyone, though, has the power to choose what they say. I want people to choose wisely. If their native empathy doesn't suffice them as cause to do so, I have no problem in principle or in practice with the fear of punishment taking its place. That, after all, is the tool societies ultimately use to discourage behaviors they regard as unacceptable. What our societies find acceptable is changing. I understand that some people really don't care for that. But, again, facts don't care about their feelings. And when we have the US Supreme Court considering whether to explicitly exclude LGBTQ people from civil rights protections, and Germany's AfD frightening Jewish people into hiding their ethnicity - when those aren't even the worst examples you can find, just the first two that came off the top of my head - it's getting awfully late in the day to take a softly-softly approach.