10 ms·

Justice for Dr. Richard Matthew Stallman

57 points by JDW1023 7y ago

antiuniverse 7y ago
>Some excerpts from many years ago did defend the alleged liberty of children to have sex – even with adults – “if the child accepted it”. For example, in 2003 Stallman wrote >>"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" >In 2006 he was skeptical of the claim that “voluntary” pedophilia harmed children. He wrote something similar in January 2013, but within limits. >This author opposes such an opinion! However, Stallman later changed his mind and, on 14 September 2019, (belatedly) retracted it. YIKES. I hadn't even heard that part. Convenient timing to suddenly change his views on the subject.
richmarr 7y ago
This post discusses 'terminological precision' and tries to clarify 'mischaracterisations', which is fair enough, but fails its own litmus test by using terms like 'hate fest' and 'witch hunt'.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
geofft 7y ago
Justice begins with truth. 1. He only has honorary doctorates. If you wouldn't say "Dr. Zuckerberg," don't say "Dr. Stallman." (Meanwhile, Dr. Bill Cosby has an earned doctorate!) 2. Related to the previous point, his "position" at MIT was an office with a mattress, thanks to having influential friends in the faculty there. He was not paid by MIT, he had no teaching role at MIT, and he was part of no MIT research projects. 3. Even if every error printed by the media was corrected, there is - and has been for years - significant dissatisfaction with him at MIT, within the FSF, within the GNU Project, and within the free software community at large. 4. Stallman continues to be welcome to debate the truth. It's a valuable part of a free society. What MIT and the free software community has made clear is that he is not welcome to debate the truth and serve as a representative of MIT and of the free software community. MIT gained nothing direct from his affiliation as unpaid research staff assigned to no research projects; all they gained was an association with his reputation. As soon as that becomes a negative association, there's no rational reason to keep it. Similarly, the free software community has argued for the removal of Stallman from his leadership position because they've seen that he prioritizes his interest in debating about sexual norms over his interest in leading and growing the free software community. (See, for instance, http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html .) It is true that the media flare-up about Stallman's Minsky/Epstein commentary was the immediate political motivation for him leaving his MIT affiliation (since the most active benefit of his affiliation was his presence on the CSAIL general mailing list where he made this comments, and there has been general displeasure at his presence there for well over a decade) and his FSF role. But I'm not sure what the benefit to the world is to re-appoint him to his FSF role only to "re-try" him for his actual failure to do his work - especially when so many GNU projects seem on the verge of forking.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  As a member of the "free software community" I take issue with your speaking on my behalf. And I have communicated with various others in our community who feel differently from how you've painted us with such broad strokes.
  - notus 7y ago
    They said there has been significant dissatisfaction, not every person who uses free software is dissatisfied.
    - panny 7y ago
      No, he said, >What MIT and the free software community has made clear is that he is not welcome to debate the truth and serve as a representative of MIT and of the free software community. I don't remember a great groundswell of anti-RMS statements from the FSF community. In fact, when Ludovic the guix maintainer brought it up on the gnu guix mailing list, Ludovic had to start banning people and removing list messages because so many people in the community loudly disagreed with him. The irony is the FSF has a censorship problem, and people who support RMS are among those being censored. https://danielpocock.com/where-do-censored-developers-go/ https://danielpocock.com/where-do-censored-developers-go/
- deogeo 7y ago
  > 3. Even if every error printed by the media was corrected That would be a huge step, and not some minor detail as you're trying to frame it. And they were not 'errors' - his statements were quite deliberately misrepresented. If I, a non-native speaker, can understand what he wrote, then native-speaker journalists should not be presumed to be so incompetent, especially since they did not correct their stories and headlines once informed of the 'errors'.
  - geofft 7y ago
    It would be a huge step, and it would be worth doing, because the truth is important - but it would not be a reason to reinstate him at MIT or at the FSF, and it would not change the ongoing conversations within the GNU project about GNU leadership.
grawprog 7y ago
The thing about all this is, when you run a non-profit organization, the things you say is seen to represent that organization whether you want them to or not especially when you're a fairly well known person like RMS. Watching the things you say is part of the job unless you want it reflecting badly on your organization. In the end, if the FSF and GNU don't feel like the things RMS says should represent them, then that's just how it goes. It's too bad, but when you become an adult, you become responsible for the things you say and the consequences that come of them.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Are you also responsible for the deliberate misrepresentation of the things you say?
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  Regardless, it’s problematic when you also have to be responsible for things you didn’t actually say.
  - geofft 7y ago
    But that's also part of the job. It's certainly unfortunate and unfair, but it's not more unfair for him than any other public figure. That's why a qualified leader needs to be careful with words and so far above reproach that a) it's hard to accidentally mischaracterize what you say b) if someone does, it seems out of character with what you actually believe. Deliberately making public statements about controversial topics that have nothing to do with your leadership role is certainly your right, but it's a strategically risky move. It's like "defensive driving" - whether or not it's illegal to brake check a driver behind you, it's definitely a bad idea. RMS and the free software movement would both have been better off if he'd stepped into an internal technical leadership role and found someone else to take on the advocacy / moral leadership / public speaking role. It would have been a better use of his talents (and honestly it might have left fewer GNU maintainers bitter about how he isn't actually writing very much code anymore but still tries to overrule decisions every so often).
AmericanChopper 7y ago
Stallman’s experience with the online outrage mob is rather typical of the way they operate. The authors comments about the witch hunt were very on point. Defending the target does make you a target yourself. This sort of thing happens to people all the time, the only difference about this case is that RMS has enough supporters out there that some of them will actually speak in his defence. The real problem we have as a society is that this sort of puritanical orthodoxy is becoming more common place. The way this intolerance shuts down a lot of inquiry and honest discussion seems obvious to me, and the way sinners are identified and publicly ruined is just another natural consequence of this system of values. A person is expected to have lived their whole life in perfect conformance to the orthodoxy. Any transgression, past or present, warrants complete exile from society, and any association with or defence of such a sinner warrants the same.
redder2 7y ago
Thank you!
gweijers 7y ago
Seriously, if a young lady one third your age, who you have never met before, in the retinue of a ostentatiously wealthy guy, would present herself to you for sex, and you don’t question the circumstances you are willfully ignoring a situation that’s likely illegal. Stallman was defending the indefensible here.
- panny 7y ago
  Where was that young lady's parents? Do you typically let your underage daughter travel with a playboy billionaire for the stated purpose of giving massages to his clients?
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    How is that better? Isn't your moral obligation to denounce that situation?
    - panny 7y ago
      Her father was directly responsible for her situation, being her legal guardian. RMS is not responsible for her situation at all and has a right to have his opinion about it.
zzo38computer 7y ago
Even if I may disagree with some of his opinions, that does not mean that I disagree with all of them. But whether I agree with it or not is not the point. Rather, is that you should not try to argue about sexual norms when trying to discuss free software instead; on your personal website you can discuss whatever you want whether I agree or not. "...he prioritizes his interest in debating about sexual norms over his interest in leading and growing the free software community." Whether or not it is true, it would seem to me that, debates about sexual norms are off of the topic of the discussion of free software, and should be kept out of their mailing lists (but he can post it on his own personal general-purpose mailing lists if he has opinion of it, but not the one for MIT or FSF, please). But if he has something to say about free software then he should say.

57 points by JDW1023 7y ago

>Some excerpts from many years ago did defend the alleged liberty of children to have sex – even with adults – “if the child accepted it”. For example, in 2003 Stallman wrote >>"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" >In 2006 he was skeptical of the claim that “voluntary” pedophilia harmed children. He wrote something similar in January 2013, but within limits. >This author opposes such an opinion! However, Stallman later changed his mind and, on 14 September 2019, (belatedly) retracted it. YIKES. I hadn't even heard that part. Convenient timing to suddenly change his views on the subject.

richmarr 7y ago

This post discusses 'terminological precision' and tries to clarify 'mischaracterisations', which is fair enough, but fails its own litmus test by using terms like 'hate fest' and 'witch hunt'.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

geofft 7y ago

Justice begins with truth. 1. He only has honorary doctorates. If you wouldn't say "Dr. Zuckerberg," don't say "Dr. Stallman." (Meanwhile, Dr. Bill Cosby has an earned doctorate!) 2. Related to the previous point, his "position" at MIT was an office with a mattress, thanks to having influential friends in the faculty there. He was not paid by MIT, he had no teaching role at MIT, and he was part of no MIT research projects. 3. Even if every error printed by the media was corrected, there is - and has been for years - significant dissatisfaction with him at MIT, within the FSF, within the GNU Project, and within the free software community at large. 4. Stallman continues to be welcome to debate the truth. It's a valuable part of a free society. What MIT and the free software community has made clear is that he is not welcome to debate the truth and serve as a representative of MIT and of the free software community. MIT gained nothing direct from his affiliation as unpaid research staff assigned to no research projects; all they gained was an association with his reputation. As soon as that becomes a negative association, there's no rational reason to keep it. Similarly, the free software community has argued for the removal of Stallman from his leadership position because they've seen that he prioritizes his interest in debating about sexual norms over his interest in leading and growing the free software community. (See, for instance, http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html .) It is true that the media flare-up about Stallman's Minsky/Epstein commentary was the immediate political motivation for him leaving his MIT affiliation (since the most active benefit of his affiliation was his presence on the CSAIL general mailing list where he made this comments, and there has been general displeasure at his presence there for well over a decade) and his FSF role. But I'm not sure what the benefit to the world is to re-appoint him to his FSF role only to "re-try" him for his actual failure to do his work - especially when so many GNU projects seem on the verge of forking.

newnewpdro 7y ago
As a member of the "free software community" I take issue with your speaking on my behalf. And I have communicated with various others in our community who feel differently from how you've painted us with such broad strokes.
- notus 7y ago
  They said there has been significant dissatisfaction, not every person who uses free software is dissatisfied.
  - panny 7y ago
    No, he said, >What MIT and the free software community has made clear is that he is not welcome to debate the truth and serve as a representative of MIT and of the free software community. I don't remember a great groundswell of anti-RMS statements from the FSF community. In fact, when Ludovic the guix maintainer brought it up on the gnu guix mailing list, Ludovic had to start banning people and removing list messages because so many people in the community loudly disagreed with him. The irony is the FSF has a censorship problem, and people who support RMS are among those being censored. https://danielpocock.com/where-do-censored-developers-go/ https://danielpocock.com/where-do-censored-developers-go/
deogeo 7y ago
> 3. Even if every error printed by the media was corrected That would be a huge step, and not some minor detail as you're trying to frame it. And they were not 'errors' - his statements were quite deliberately misrepresented. If I, a non-native speaker, can understand what he wrote, then native-speaker journalists should not be presumed to be so incompetent, especially since they did not correct their stories and headlines once informed of the 'errors'.
- geofft 7y ago
  It would be a huge step, and it would be worth doing, because the truth is important - but it would not be a reason to reinstate him at MIT or at the FSF, and it would not change the ongoing conversations within the GNU project about GNU leadership.

grawprog 7y ago

The thing about all this is, when you run a non-profit organization, the things you say is seen to represent that organization whether you want them to or not especially when you're a fairly well known person like RMS. Watching the things you say is part of the job unless you want it reflecting badly on your organization. In the end, if the FSF and GNU don't feel like the things RMS says should represent them, then that's just how it goes. It's too bad, but when you become an adult, you become responsible for the things you say and the consequences that come of them.

deogeo 7y ago
Are you also responsible for the deliberate misrepresentation of the things you say?
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
Regardless, it’s problematic when you also have to be responsible for things you didn’t actually say.
- geofft 7y ago
  But that's also part of the job. It's certainly unfortunate and unfair, but it's not more unfair for him than any other public figure. That's why a qualified leader needs to be careful with words and so far above reproach that a) it's hard to accidentally mischaracterize what you say b) if someone does, it seems out of character with what you actually believe. Deliberately making public statements about controversial topics that have nothing to do with your leadership role is certainly your right, but it's a strategically risky move. It's like "defensive driving" - whether or not it's illegal to brake check a driver behind you, it's definitely a bad idea. RMS and the free software movement would both have been better off if he'd stepped into an internal technical leadership role and found someone else to take on the advocacy / moral leadership / public speaking role. It would have been a better use of his talents (and honestly it might have left fewer GNU maintainers bitter about how he isn't actually writing very much code anymore but still tries to overrule decisions every so often).

AmericanChopper 7y ago

Stallman’s experience with the online outrage mob is rather typical of the way they operate. The authors comments about the witch hunt were very on point. Defending the target does make you a target yourself. This sort of thing happens to people all the time, the only difference about this case is that RMS has enough supporters out there that some of them will actually speak in his defence. The real problem we have as a society is that this sort of puritanical orthodoxy is becoming more common place. The way this intolerance shuts down a lot of inquiry and honest discussion seems obvious to me, and the way sinners are identified and publicly ruined is just another natural consequence of this system of values. A person is expected to have lived their whole life in perfect conformance to the orthodoxy. Any transgression, past or present, warrants complete exile from society, and any association with or defence of such a sinner warrants the same.

redder2 7y ago

Thank you!

gweijers 7y ago

Seriously, if a young lady one third your age, who you have never met before, in the retinue of a ostentatiously wealthy guy, would present herself to you for sex, and you don’t question the circumstances you are willfully ignoring a situation that’s likely illegal. Stallman was defending the indefensible here.

panny 7y ago
Where was that young lady's parents? Do you typically let your underage daughter travel with a playboy billionaire for the stated purpose of giving massages to his clients?
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  How is that better? Isn't your moral obligation to denounce that situation?
  - panny 7y ago
    Her father was directly responsible for her situation, being her legal guardian. RMS is not responsible for her situation at all and has a right to have his opinion about it.

zzo38computer 7y ago

Even if I may disagree with some of his opinions, that does not mean that I disagree with all of them. But whether I agree with it or not is not the point. Rather, is that you should not try to argue about sexual norms when trying to discuss free software instead; on your personal website you can discuss whatever you want whether I agree or not. "...he prioritizes his interest in debating about sexual norms over his interest in leading and growing the free software community." Whether or not it is true, it would seem to me that, debates about sexual norms are off of the topic of the discussion of free software, and should be kept out of their mailing lists (but he can post it on his own personal general-purpose mailing lists if he has opinion of it, but not the one for MIT or FSF, please). But if he has something to say about free software then he should say.