74 ms·

I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on t

• compiler-guy 6y ago
  It wasn’t just a few statements. It is a constellation of issues that make him very hard to interact with. A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years.
  • Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Again, maybe it was "hard to interact with him" only if one was unwilling to accept his difference?
    • JohnHaugeland 6y ago
      Please stop. He argued that pedophilia was okay.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • dempseye 6y ago
        Where did he say that?
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
        • mjg59 6y ago
          This is probably a reference to https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html: "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."
          • deleted 6y ago
            [deleted]
          • henearkr 6y ago
            The context is the one of the accusation of Marvin Minsky, in a case involving Epstein. The victim was a 17 yo girl, and "if" the condition of sexual slavery of the victim was not made clear, it could have been misunderstood as a voluntary act, and I would indeed understand that a voluntary sexual act with a 17 yo girl does not systematically lead to harm. What was criticized by RMS was the overly broad generalizations of the harmfulness.
            • mjg59 6y ago
              > The context is the one of the accusation of Marvin Minsky, in a case involving Epstein No, the context is the totality of RMS's behaviour over the years, as was made clear by a parent comment: "A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years."
              • henearkr 6y ago
                Right, the context was earlier (2006). I don't know all of the accumulated missteps he did, so of course I will refrain from concluding. At least, the one about the over-generalization seems legit (with the example of a willing 17 yo).
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
      • moistbar 6y ago
        No, he didn't. He defended a dead person from accusations of pedophilia and had quotes from it taken tremendously out of context.
        • stephenr 6y ago
          Yes, he did, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216
          • spurgu 6y ago
            I find it refreshing to see someone willing to talk and think about these taboo kind of subjects. Myself I think it (sexual interaction) boils down to mutual consent, but there's obviously an age where a person cannot grasp the scope of what they're consenting to. And necrophilia fails this definition since consent is impossible (unless written in a will). And now having looked into what he was actually accused of, of trying to imply that a sexual "assault" didn't necessarily happen, it's just strengthening my view that this "wokeness" is getting way out of hand in today's society.
            • stephenr 6y ago
              The law literally is about age of consent. As a society we deem young people too immature to make important decisions for themselves. Nothing about calling him on his ridiculous views is related to "wokeness". One guy saying "hey maybe fucking kids isn't bad" is not in any way related to social injustice - society in general says that fucking kids is bad. Edit: unless you agree with his claims - then I guess you might see it as "social injustice". This is just a weirdo saying weird shit, and then other people (you) trying to latch onto the new version of "don't blame me, back in my day it was OK".
              • varajelle 6y ago
                Not only young people but also adult who would want to take some kind of drugs, or who would like to get into, god forbid, homosexual acts. Now, homosexuality has been allowed everywhere in the US for a decade or so. It wouldn't have been if it was not appropriate to talk about it. Richard Stallman was, for my understanding, just daring to ask questions, and debating over a sensitive topic, and he got blamed for it.
      • SilverRed 6y ago
        Thats a serious misrepresentation of his words. He once had a page on his site saying that he did not think it was harmful if voluntary (eg, consent between people of similar ages but one being over age) He has since removed the post and stated that its more complex than he initially thought.
        • stonogo 6y ago
          He did not remove the post, it's here: 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... And he didn't change his mind for over a decade, until he got in trouble for defending Marvin Minsky. I'm still not convinced his "updated opinion" would have happened without the scrutiny brought by the Epstein case.
          • PurpleFoxy 6y ago
            Looks like he moved it to the archive section and dated it 2006 to show it is a very outdated view. Stallman is a very honest person and won’t try to hide the past. This comment used to be on one of the main info pages of the site.
            • klyrs 6y ago
              That quote has been at that url since 2006 https://web.archive.org/web/20060821211348/https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html https://web.archive.org/web/20060821211348/https://www.stall...
              • hda2 6y ago
                Did he redact his statement or not? A simple Yes or No will suffice.
                • fooker 6y ago
                  Yes or No answers are only relevant when you admit yourself to be incapable of nuanced thought. Alternatively : “Have you stopped beating your wife?” A simple yes or no answer will suffice. :)
      • lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun them as well.
        • mjg59 6y ago
          I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" as a suggestion that there are circumstances under which paedophilia is OK. Suggesting that someone doing so is willfully, blatantly lying seems like an unsupported claim.
          • phkahler 6y ago
            There is another sentence after the one you quote which takes the edge off it. Dropping that part could be construed as willfully taking his words out of context to makes them sound worse. IMHO taken as a whole I think it says more about his lack of understanding than him endorsing anything. But as you say, that's not blatant lying.
            • davidcbc 6y ago
              > 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. This doesn't take the edge off, it makes it sound worse
              • gizmo686 6y ago
                How does it make it sound worse? As I read it, he is saying: Original quote: "I am skeptical about <widely believed thing". Added context: "because <the arguments people present to not actually address the issue in question>" The added context moves him even further away from saying anything about pedophilia itself, and further into saying stuff about other people who are saying something about pedophilia.
      • henearkr 6y ago
        [edit: I got the context wrong, see children comments] The commented pedophilia was the allegated one of Marvin Minsky with a 17 yo girl, whose coercion (by Epstein) into sexual acts was maybe (probably, in the words of RMS) not made clear to Minsky (nor the age). I precise, because 17 yo is a quite mature age for sexual activity (and more so for a girl than for a boy, because the sexual maturity of the body happens earlier), and the context of being presented by Epstein may make it not obvious that there was slavery. So, even if I do not condone, I can see where the position of RMS comes from.
        • dragonwriter 6y ago
          > The commented pedophilia was the allegated one of Marvin Minsky with a 17 yo girl, No, it was a comment in response to a group of Dutch pedophiles forming a political party with the stated goal of first reducing the age of consent for sex to 12, and eventually eliminating it altogether. What Minsky was accused of is sex with someone post-pubescent but below the age of consent, which isn't an act indicative of pedophilia, so defending pedophilia to defend Minsky would be gratuitous in the same way that defending allowing the Voting Rights Act to expire by saying the practice of slavery in the US wasn't actually harmful to those enslaved would be.
          • henearkr 6y ago
            Oh, thanks for pointing out. You're right, so the Minsky case does not belong to the controversy around RMS positions. I did not know of this Dutch group, and I think their purpose is wrong.
            • dragonwriter 6y ago
              I think he also specifically defended Minsky, IIRC, onn the grounds that it wasn't clear Minsky had any reason to suspect that it wasn't voluntary and that, given that, did nothing morally wrong (if you think sex with prepubescent children can be voluntary and if so not harmful, obviously it's unsurprising to think the same thing for post-pubescent near-adults); his defense of Minsky is still controversial (people don't generally think that the age of consent is a bad idea, especially when there is a also a wide gulf in ages between parties), but not as extreme as his separate defense of pedophilic sex generally.
      • ogurechny 6y ago
        Please stop. You are using the modern “inexcusable” accusation that only serves as a tool to shut others' mouths and bend them to submission to authority (“Communist”, “Jew”, or “enemy of the people”). See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
    • Grimm1 6y ago
      Just because you accept someone's differences doesn't change that they may, to you, be difficult to interact with. It's saying this is potentially more difficult but because they're a human being deserving of treatment just like you want to be treated, you try to overcome the difficulty. Co-existing with people is difficult in the best of circumstances, pretending like our differences don't exist won't make that any easier. I also don't really know all that much about Richard Stallman I just don't like the idea that if you accept someone for themselves all the difficulties of social cohesion magically disappear because it's untrue.
    • YorickPeterse 6y ago
      This is just the same excuse as the age old "Boys will be boys" excuse. Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep and general unpleasant person to work with, without there eventually being repercussions.
      • serf 6y ago
        not really. 'boys will be boys' doesn't assert that 'boys' get away with whatever they want because they are neuro-divergent, it asserts that gender allows for additional privilege. >Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep For the sake of argument : what if that person has neurological quirks which disallow 'non-creep' , to use your parlance, behavior? To take the example even further , it's illegal with fine attached to say curse words on certain beaches in the United States. Is it reasonable to fine an individual with Tourette Syndrome when they scream expletives on such a beach?
        • patmcc 6y ago
          Take it to the extreme - murder is illegal; if you kill someone because you're a bad bad person, we jail you. If you kill someone because you're "insane"...we still remove you from society, but you just get treatment instead of punishment. We still consider the act of killing someone unacceptable. If swearing at the beach is unacceptable, full stop, then it's unacceptable for a person with or without TS. (Personally, that sounds like a dumb law, but what do I know)
          • linspace 6y ago
            I think there is a clear distinction. People have a right to live above insane persons freedom. TS people have a right to freedom above people's inconvenience to hear curse words. Law balances these kind of things all the time, that's why we don't slave people when they own money anymore, to put one of many examples.
          • sellyme 6y ago
            Weirdly I think taking it to the extreme made your point somewhat worse. Something like theft versus kleptomania is just a punishment versus treatment scenario, but I would definitely perceive someone who commits an unprovoked murder to inherently require psychological treatment, even if they don't meet the requirements of an insanity defence. But I do agree with the idea that letting someone off the hook for all consequences on account of a mental illness isn't viable. That makes things a lot harder for neurodivergent individuals, but that's why we should have extensive support programs and provide resources to help them cope with the expectations of general society. It's a tricky problem, because to meaningfully distinguish between someone who is mentally incapable of following a law and someone who is capable of doing so but systematically elects not to, you are functionally deciding which humans do and do not have free will on an individual basis. I think most people would believe that either all humans have free will, or no humans have free will, not somewhere in between, so this is a scenario that is uncomfortable to pretty much everyone.
  • scythe 6y ago
    It sucks that this couldn't have been addressed earlier. Accounts generally indicate that people were aware. Unfortunately, when someone is in a position of power, often the only recourse is the sword of Damocles. This is especially difficult for people who become relevant by leading a movement rather than rising through the ranks. But that means that there is a natural tension between social mobility and a culture of accountability, which is likely the source of a lot of dissatisfaction in society.
  • bsder 6y ago
    Okay. I think your statements indicate you are a jerk. Do I now suddenly get to punish you? Do I get to go to your boss and try to get him to fire you? See the problem?
    • kelnos 6y ago
      I mean... yes? That's exactly what you do? The boss is presumably a rational human being and can decide if your complaints have merit or not. If you personally are in a position to punish someone who you believe is a jerk, then yeah, you'll probably punish them, because that's just how social interaction works.
      • DreamScatter 6y ago
        Ah ok, sounds like you are a jerk yourself then, lets get you fired, since you think that's what social interaction is.
      • nske 6y ago
        I think in practice the boss would primarily evaluate the negative impact (or the risk) of the public reaction against the company/organisation versus the positive impact the controversial person brings through the merits of their work. It would be a business decision.
• capableweb 6y ago
  > intentionally offensive I think this is spot on, because people stopped caring about someone's intention before judging them. Maybe people got so good at lying about their intention, that we don't believe them when they say "it wasn't my intention" when someone says something bad. The end result is the same, it doesn't matter what your intention was, you say something bad, you deserve bad back.
  • toiletfuneral 6y ago
    Yeah thats me, I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome' All the well meaning in the world doesn't mean shit if you're creating hostility or demeaning others (that is not commentary on RMS, just in general)
    • hntrader 6y ago
      "I don't care about 'intent' as much as 'outcome'" Accidentaly killing someone with your car is very different to negligent driving which causes death which is also very different to intentionally killing someone with your car. Clearly intent and context matters a lot.
      • mjg59 6y ago
        These are all different things, but the end result is that someone has been hit with a car. If your goal is to avoid people being hit with cars and someone keeps accidentally hitting people with their car, then you probably want to considering whether that person should be allowed to drive.
        • Guthur 6y ago
          The causes are of different classification and require different responses. When a cause is systemic it maybe with some natural variance and within what realistically deem acceptable, depending on where we set the bounds. While others maybe special cases and require detailed study to understand. Blindly setting outcome goals without understanding the system is folly.
• ruined 6y ago
  plenty of autistic people manage to be decent. making excuses like this simply dodges responsibility and assigns bad credit to millions of autistic people who don't deserve it, and amounts to concern trolling.
  • henriquez 6y ago
    Your statement is analogous to saying “all autistic people are the same” which is itself very offensive.
    • asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      To me, the only thing implied by the above comment is that "all autistic people are capable of being decent to other people." That doesn't seem offensive, although it may be incorrect (I simply do not know).
      • hedora 6y ago
        It is incorrect. Autism is a spectrum.
        • astrange 6y ago
          Note that RMS says he doesn't have autism. High functioning autism doesn't look like being rude anyway; it's just some combination of talking for too long and being very sensitive to environmental disturbances.
      • henriquez 6y ago
        Clearly not all neurotypical people are capable of being decent to others, so how would it make sense that all autistic people are? No, to assume that forgiveness or empathy to one autistic individual denigrates an entire spectrum of autistic individuals is the same as assuming that from the actions of one we can confer some sort of collective responsibility. This assumption is the root of all prejudice.
• colechristensen 6y ago
  I do not. Being unusual does not free you from the burdens of being a decent person, especially while in a public leadership position, especially when your violations are a repeated trend over a very long period. With the right diagnostic criteria just about everybody who is an asshole could be diagnosed with some mental disorder or another and that is more or less the present state of psychology, that kind of reasoning is asking for a consequence free society. The kind of person RMS has shown himself to be, regardless of diagnosis, disqualifies him from being a public figure and leader.
  • SilverRed 6y ago
    I don't think RMS has ever intentionally been an asshole. The event that got him kicked out was him trying to clarify that someone he worked with may not of known all the details of the situation and that people shouldn't witch hunt this person who was not around to defend themself. Sure it was a very risky and emotionally charged email thread but RMS still very much seems like a decent person.
    • jolux 6y ago
      >The event that got him kicked out was him trying to clarify that someone he worked with may not of known all the details of the situation and that people shouldn't witch hunt this person who was not around to defend themselfs. No, it went much further than that: https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of-the-clueless-nerd/ https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of...
      • lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        Doesn’t look like it did. Looks like another case of cancel culture and nobody reading what he actually said.
        • jolux 6y ago
          https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman-leaves-mit-after-controversial-remarks-on-rape/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman...
• nicklecompte 6y ago
  There is absolutely zero evidence Stallman has autism, none whatsoever, and absolutely no evidence that he has any neurological disability. The fact that he once described himself as “borderline autistic” isn’t evidence of anything (except perhaps that Stallman is a jerk who doesn’t care about people who actually have autism). As someone who actually has schizophrenia and struggles with it in the workplace and in society: it honestly makes me sick to see people defend Stallman’s reprehensible behavior with some bullshit about “neurodiversity.” You are throwing an entire population of people under the bus because you’re too immature to accept that RMS is a bad person. It’s pathetic.
  • SilverRed 6y ago
    In what way is RMS a bad person? He has always seemed pretty honest and well intentioned. Its just he doesn't know when to shut his mouth or which hills are worth dying on.
    • nicklecompte 6y ago
      I will say his “opinions” on child rape and children with disabilities are despicable and immoral, and not just a matter of him being eccentric. While he might sincerely believe such things that is hardly an endorsement of his character. But it’s not just his horrible opinions: for decades he constantly harassed women at MIT (students and faculty), especially teenagers. The details are really quite gross: https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88 https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... He’s a sex pest and a creep.
      • adolph 6y ago
        The lead horrifying story is truly "quite gross": I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”
      • higerordermap 6y ago
        > He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. As someone who is not native speaker, what does "implications" mean exactly here? Little confused.
• nostrademons 6y ago
  Ribbonfarm called this a couple years ago: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/06/a-quick-battle-field-guide-to-the-new-culture-wars/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/06/a-quick-battle-field-g... Specifically battlefront #8. He calls it consequential because the the neurodivergent/PC conflict highlights an inherent paradox in the PC worldview. Most applications of political correctness focus (at least on the surface) on defending a marginalized group against the verbal attacks of a privileged one. When applied to autistic or neurodivergent individuals, however, PC norms work to disadvantage an already disadvantaged minority against groups that are both larger and often more economically and culturally free.
  • ethbr0 6y ago
    Honestly asking, what's the difference between someone being neurodivergent and just thoughtless / mean / an ass?
    • wmf 6y ago
      Whether they can control it?
      • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        Then why would someone choose to be an ass - or generally choose to be unlikable?
        • nostrademons 6y ago
          It's usually a matter of priorities. Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them. Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually harass women because 1 out of 10 times, it gets them laid. Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. Or they stop paying rent because there's an eviction moratorium, even though they could, because it saves them money and their landlord has no way to enforce agreements anyway. Or they sell drugs to children because they want money. Or they cut people down because it makes them feel big in the moment.
• hedora 6y ago
  You know what? Fuck it. I’ve been putting it off too long. I’m installing https://templeos.org/ https://templeos.org/ tonight.
• hourislate 6y ago
  It's sad that the media outlets and "Woke Twitter", etc, were misquoting him saying he was defending Jeffrey Epstein and doing everything they could to get him fired from the FSF, etc. What's even worse was none of these "WOKE" were even concerned with "the victims of sexual assault" or any other noble cause. This was organized for ideological reasons and their goal was and is to replace everyone in a relevant position with ideologically aligned people. They are the kind of people that believe that any speech or freedoms that run counter to their agenda should be regulated to fit their definition of a common good. He did nothing wrong. He is a brilliant person.
  • dkersten 6y ago
    The worst part is that the blog post that started a lot of that literally quoted RMS one sentence and the rephrased it as something completely different in the very next sentence. And nobody called them out for it. He basically just said "Minsky may not have known because Epstein most likely forced the girl into acting as if her was willing" (paraphrased from memory) and it got turned into "RMS said the girl was willing".
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • howinteresting 6y ago
      Yes, the full quote with context makes it worse, not better.
      • franga2000 6y ago
        Does it tho? There's definitely a difference between having sex with a 17yo when you think it's consentual without knowing someone else is forcing her in the background vs. forcing her yourself. Although I personally don't believe it, it is theoretically possible that Minsky didn't know - pointing that out, especially when very little information was available, seems at worst insensitive, but sounds mainly like a very logic-driven mind taking the presumption of innocence very seriously. He also had a very good point about making the distinction between "sexual relations with a minor" and "sexual assault"/"rape" - again, I agree that both should be illegal and punushed harshly, but is having consentual sex with a 17yo really AS BAD as forcing yourself upon a person of any age? As for his last point about the absurdity of the exact same thing being rape if done today, but perfectly normal if done mere days later: isn't it kinda absurd? Like, yes, there needs to be a boundary, but isn't it insane that there are only two categories: <18 is one of the worst crimes possible and >18 is perfectly legal. I don't know a better system and wouldn't even attempt to propose a better one, but surely this isn't the best we can do? To be clear: I don't particularly like Stallman and gladly point out his sexist and generally rude remarks and behavior when people glorify him, but this all just seems like a person only looking at the logical side of the story and ending up sounding extremely insensitive. The term "neurodivergent" would usually get thrown in here, although I'm reluctant to use it since it's far too broad and I don't have any specific information about RMS. Inappropriate and insensitive? Yes! Defending rape, as some media outlets framed it? Not even close!
• tw04 6y ago
  >were not illegal or intentionally offensive. I'm not sure how you can claim to know his intent 18 months after the fact. Do you have an interview or personal relationship to back that claim up? A whole lot of people he directly worked with definitely don't agree with your assessment of his intent. I don't believe in the time since that he has acknowledged the comments or suggested he didn't mean to offend or that he understands why it was probably a pretty horrible thing to say in light of all the things we know about Epstein. Accepting someone for their differences: sure. But to imply Stallman is incapable of acknowledging wrongdoing because of autism while simultaneously being qualified to represent the FSF feels like a reach to me.
• bigtones 6y ago
  Selam Jie Gano, a female at MIT when he worked there wrote: “There is no single person that is so deserving of praise their comments deprecating others should be allowed to slide. Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.”
  • mssundaram 6y ago
    Is something cut off in that quote? I don't understand how to read it
    • vharuck 6y ago
      "There is no single person that is so deserving of praise [that] their comments deprecating others should be allowed to slide. Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.”
      • mssundaram 6y ago
        Ah! Thank you
  • etrabroline 6y ago
    Great quote. I think a large fraction of male programmers would disagree with Selam Jie Gano's characterization of RMS's statements. These kinds of "culture war" battles should not be happening in GNU. Free Software should be happening and people should be willing to leave these disagreements at the door. If you aren't, I am significantly less interested in working with you and I suspect many GNU contributors are as well.
    • boomboomsubban 6y ago
      I don't get this. "You should abandon any other ideals you have when working for our ideological project."
      • 6y ago
• zeruch 6y ago
  It's not just neurodivergence, but its that he recognizes where he jabs people and pretty much admits he doesn't care. I once had this conversation about with with ESR and I remember him saying "RMS doesn't care about the 'social overhead' of most person to person interactions" and so he kind of does his own normative preferences, thinking that because he finds them ideal, that others shouldn't be offended....but then he seems offended by an infinitely long list of things, and his intellect seems to treat this asymmetry as one big blind spot. I've listened to him be rude to former co-workers (one seemingly on the basis that she was a woman in a technical role) and an absolute one man clown rodeo at various trade show events. His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.
  • bobsled 6y ago
    I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history.
    • afuchs 6y ago
      > I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history. This is illegible and does not seem to follow from the rest of this thread. I'm missing where the GP made a statement about a person's "philosophical brilliance." Did I miss something, or is this meant to infer something else?
      • bobsled 6y ago
        I believed I was responding to a comment by the user "zeruch". I may not be using this comment section correctly. >His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.
• karaterobot 6y ago
  Just wondering what the source is for Stallman being autistic? I see people saying he's autistic, and I even see people saying he has called himself "borderline autistic", but that's not quite the same thing as a diagnosis. I don't see a reliable source making that claim; even Wikipedia says nothing about it (except a backstage talk item about there not being any source on the claim). I admit, the circumstantial evidence is, uhh, indicative, but I don't see it being a matter of public record. Then again, I only did six and a half minutes of internet research, though, and I could be wrong, thus the question mark.
  • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Given what the lengths he went through to create GNU in the 1970s, I’m willing to believe it.
    • ddingus 6y ago
      Definitely above the mean drive, resolve, conviction. There are, at any given time, few people who walk this world rating so highly on these scales.
  • skissane 6y ago
    > Just wondering what the source is for Stallman being autistic? I see people saying he's autistic, and I even see people saying he has called himself "borderline autistic", but that's not quite the same thing as a diagnosis If you understand the concept of the broad autism phenotype (BAP), it is hard not to see it in his behaviour. He obviously has autistic traits. Now, is it BAP (sub-clinical ASD) or is it clinical ASD? Nobody can answer that unless they are actually a qualified diagnostician (psychiatrist/psychologist/etc) personally evaluating him. But I'm not sure how much that matters. The boundary between BAP and ASD is vague, it varies from clinician to clinician and is changing over time. If you choose to view things dimensionally [0] rather than categorically, you have "super-neurotypical" people at one extreme, you have "severe ASD" at the other [1]. And somewhere in between the two, you draw a line (the diagnostic cutoff), and say people on one side of the line have "mild ASD" and people on the other side of the line don't have ASD. And the people who are on the "neurotypical" side of the line, but still close to it rather than far away, that's BAP. And I think the point is that RMS obviously is somewhere near that line, whichever side of it he may belong on. (And as I said, the line doesn't have a single fixed location anyway, he might be on one side given some clinicians' ways of drawing it and on the other given others'.) [0] I've drawn an oversimplified one-dimensional model here. In reality ASD is a multidimensional construct. But, treating it one-dimensionally is a simplification which aids in explanation [1] I know some people don't like phrases like "mild ASD" or "severe ASD" (or their close relatives "low functioning" and "high functioning"), but how else do you explain the difference between someone diagnosed with "ASD Level 1 / Level 1 without intellectual or language impairment" and someone else who is diagnosed with "ASD Level 3 / Level 3 with intellectual impairment and language impairment"?
• arp242 6y ago
  Neurodiversity – up to some point anyway, some people take it a tad too far – is great, but that also means that different people are, well, different, and are good at different things. Stallman is good at many different things and he doesn't seem like e bad bloke overall. But he is not good at being a leader. At all. It's just not where his aptitudes lie. As a leader he is not only ineffective, but even counter-productive and harmful. I feel the entire conversation about the statements surrounding Minsky are a bit of a distraction; what we should really be talking about is something like "is Stallman the best person to represent us as a community?" I'd argue he's not, and has never really been.
  • seba_dos1 6y ago
    You can have a conversation whether Stallman is the best person to be a leader, but let's keep false accusations and blatant misinterpretations of his words out of that please. Especially if those words are part of perfectly reasonable thought chain that lots of people on the spectrum would easily agree with (at least when being at the same point in the chain). When I read those attacks, it's not about Stallman anymore to me - it's about me and all the people like me (a group that just happens to include Stallman). If someone lacks enough empathy and social skills to be able to put his words into appropriate context, then maybe they should refrain from interpreting those words (and yet they say that those are qualities that autistic people lack...)
    • arp242 6y ago
      > You can have a conversation whether Stallman is the best person to be a leader, but let's keep false accusations and blatant misinterpretations of his words out of that please Well, yes, but everyone is talking about this, including your comment. Was Stallman treated unfairly? Sure. It is what it is; the world is an unfair place. I can't change that either. It's been a few years: let's move on and talk about effective leadership for the movement instead.
      • africanboy 6y ago
        > let's move on and talk about effective leadership for the movement instead. Let's move on and welcome Stallman back, because we need him more than those that slandered him. Let's also talk about what should change so it won't happen again, to anybody else. Not everyone is a gentle giant like Stallman is. Do you remember what happened to poor Aaron Swarz when he was falsely accused and prosecuted for things he hadn't done? I, speaking for myself, don't want an FSF were people can get thrown out by an internet mob. I want an FSF that defends its members and judge facts, not opinions. I think Stallman is one of those persons, but I very much welcome other candidates.
• young_unixer 6y ago
  I don't even think we should be "advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people". We should just stop using our prejudice to misinterpret statements, and we should stop putting words in other people's mouths. Autistic people (who usually talk in a very literal way) would be benefited by this change as a byproduct, but this principle should apply to everyone, not only to neurodivergent people. Is what the person said technically correct? Yes or no. That's all that matters.
  • wozer 6y ago
    Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, because there are some neurotypical people who have mastered the art to say technically correct things but implying different, often awful things.
    • gameman144 6y ago
      But isn't that a core part of the problem? If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? It seems like a constant game of walking on eggshells if you're trying to pre-emptively prevent anyone from concluding that you were trying to imply something bad. It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversations and interviews: if the other party thinks you're implying something, they can follow-up and ask whether you are indeed intending to. Without two-way discourse, taking someone's statements in good faith seems like the lesser of two evils.
      • herbstein 6y ago
        > If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person? I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuum. However, surely patterns of behavior and the larger context of the words being said should play a role in our interpretation of the words said? Otherwise you end up with things that, read hyper-literally, are innocuous while being completely heinous in context. "Exterminate the Vermin" said by an exterminator is very different to it being said by a German in 1944.
• geofft 6y ago
  If we're going to be understanding towards neurodivergent people, a good place to start is not defining "autism" as "the inability to be anything other than an asshole, the inability to understand after people patiently work with you to explain why people think you're being an asshole [1], and the inability to apologize." Also, a lot of the people who are upset with RMS and think he should stop being the figurehead of the movement are, themselves, neurodivergent! If we're going to assume that autistic people are fundamentally incapable of communicating with mainstream norms, what do we do for autistic people who are harmed by RMS's actions but aren't able to express it in a way the mainstream can hear? [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
• rodgerd 6y ago
  > But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism tha rms has repeatedly said he does not suffer from autism. Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders.
  • nobody9999 6y ago
    >Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders. Where, exactly, did RMS do so? This isn't a troll or a "gotcha" either. All the claims about RMS doing so are from now public statements by RMS. Please provide (with appropriate context) evidence for the assertion that RMS tried to "legitimize child sexual offenders." If you perform that exercise in good faith, you'll find that there is no evidence that RMS did (or attempted) any such thing. I don't know RMS, nor am I associated with any organization with which he is or ever was associated. In fact, I was quite angry when I read the accusations against him. But rather than take the word of others, I read his statements, in context, and came to the conclusion that those accusations were both false and sensationalized. I have my suspicions as to why those false and sensationalized accusations were made, but I won't do what those who sought to portray Stallman as an advocate for pedophilia, rape and assault did. I'll let others make up their own minds as to the motivations of the folks who sought to amplify such claims. Edit: Clarified the reasons for not airing my suspicions in this comment.
    • pseudalopex 6y ago
      Stallman said pedophilia is "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] He must have meant the act because the paraphilia isn't illegal. He dismissed people who believe children can't consent as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing".[2] He didn't mean adolescents.[3] Having sex with a child is an offense in most countries.[4] Offender means someone who commits an offense. [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%202003%20 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...() [2] 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... [3] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(Plea_deal_for_Epstein) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201...
• fctorial 6y ago
  Which statements?
• duxup 6y ago
  I'm wondering how we decide where people who are different are behaving because of that.... or a choice they made that they are responsible for? I'm not sure how to make that call.
  • ddingus 6y ago
    What we can do is speak to their actions and leave the door open for them to improve. And I am not talking about avoiding consequences. Those are ever present as they should be. However it all plays out, if we do shut that door, what inventive is there for people to improve? Secondly, how do they actually present having done it, or even begin the attempt when those doors are slammed shut? It should not be easy, but should also be possible.
• drivingmenuts 6y ago
  Has RMS ever been formally diagnosed as autistic, or is it just the perception/defense of armchair physicians?
  • pseudalopex 6y ago
    He said he isn't autistic in 2008.[1] I haven't seen anything about him getting diagnosed since then. [1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxymoron.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
• howinteresting 6y ago
  I am an incredibly neurodivergent person and through focused effort, driven by caring about how other people feel, I've picked up on many social cues. I am comfortable excluding people who use their neurodivergence as an excuse to be unkind to other people.
  • adolph 6y ago
    >I am comfortable excluding people who Could this be an opportunity for your focused effort? Exclusion is dramatically unkind.
    • howinteresting 6y ago
      It is unkind, but sometimes one has to be unkind to prevent greater harms from happening. Such is life.
      • account42 6y ago
        That is just an excuse to be unkind whenever convenient.
• yongjik 6y ago
  There's a difference between supporting people struggling with, let's say, alcoholism, and hiring an alcoholic as your head of PR so that he can throw up on people in front of camera.
• IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  Being “neurodivergent” isn’t a license to hurt people. Yes, it is a reason to refrain from punishing someone, because punishment requires guilt. It isn’t a reason not to take the steps necessary to protect others, such as not putting them in a position of power. Example: it doesn’t make sense to punish a cat that eats your parrot, because that’s what cats do. It does make sense to lock the door between the cat and the parrot.
• gigatexal 6y ago
  So being “neurodivergent” gives him a pass to dismiss statutory rape and pubescent teens having sex or being chill with the viewing or collecting depictions of kiddie porn? [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman-leaves-mit-after-controversial-remarks-on-rape/?amp=1 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman... (Posting the amp link because haha) I think we should thank Stallman for all the work he’s done in advocating for free software but then let him go and be the crazy old man yelling at the clouds and fade into irrelevancy.
• legulere 6y ago
  No matter the reasons for his way of thinking, but maybe we shouldn’t have a person whose definition of freedom includes raping children on the board of a organization that promotes software freedom.
• ilyaeck 6y ago
  I think this entire moralistic debate is misguided. Granted, if RMS was indeed autistic, all the more reason to "judge" him more charitably. But even if he wasn't, its doesn't mean that his cancellation - based on things he might have said and, lest we forget, a smear campaign by an internet mob ignited by false accusations - was justified. RMS was one of the founders of the Free Software Movement - that is why he occupied that post at the FSF. Not because he was the epitome of high Christian morals - why would/should that be a job requirement in his line of work? Do you want righteous activists also demand they be "nice guys"? If so, time to start cancelling the very champions of cancel culture as few of them are "nice people" (which, btw, is bound to happen if history is any indication). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too...
• eyelidlessness 6y ago
  I find it strange as a neurodivergent person that this person has a reputation for abusive behavior and that’s excused for him because he has celebrity in certain circles. I wouldn’t and shouldn’t be afforded that, and rightly haven’t when I’ve misunderstood how to treat others.
• gypsyharlot 6y ago
  Exactly. Unfortunately, there are activists within the GNU movement, like Andy Wingo, that have done everything they can to have RMS removed from everything he has built.
  • junke 6y ago
    People part of the GNU movement say "we owe a debt of gratitude to Richard Stallman for his decades of important work in the free software movement". Andy Wingo said "he created GNU, speaking it into existence via prophetic narrative and via code; yes, he inspired many people, myself included, to make the vision of a GNU system into a reality; and yes, he should be recognized for these things." They also say: "Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users." Andy also wrote: "I can hear you saying it. RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be. GNU has long outgrown any individual contributor. I don't think RMS has the legitimacy to tell this group of largely volunteers what we should build or how we should organize ourselves. Or rather, he can say what he thinks, but he has no dominion over GNU; he does not have majority sweat equity in the project. But I don't accept that. GNU is about practical software freedom, not about RMS. [...] I simply state that I, personally, do not serve RMS." Your comment is the one attributing to others malicious intent: "Unfortunately, there are activists within the GNU movement, like Andy Wingo, that have done everything they can to have RMS removed from everything he has built." I don't know why, maybe when you get older (as I do), you start being afraid of being put out of work by younger people (I don't), or maybe you are yourself neurodivergent and weird with people (I do). It is logical, then, to feel empathy for rms. But, factually, rms is not being confronted for his "quircks" or his age. The way public figures behave, publicly and in their relationship with others as part of their work, has an impact on the culture it encourages. The fact that people express discomfort, fear, etc. when they want to contribute to free software is worrying. I feel bad for them. I see nothing unfortunate here in having people confront someone in power for his behaviour. I mean, it is 2021, do I need to quote the Peter Parker principle? --- https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and... https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... https://www.forbes.com/sites/heidilynnekurter/2019/12/23/4-strategies-to-repair-a-toxic-culture-from-the-top-down/?sh=34c3725440e0 https://www.forbes.com/sites/heidilynnekurter/2019/12/23/4-s...
• koonsolo 6y ago
  I'm not autistic, and I think RMS statement was 100% rational. If not, then anyone can show me where he is factually wrong.
• choeger 6y ago
  There is no objectivity in this. RMS was attacked by a specific subgroup of the identity culture. He could well be defended by another. Sometimes identity politics just seems to be the continuation of european leftist splinter group infighting with other means.
• throw6119088 6y ago
  I just wanna leave here some classic papers on sexism and harassment in tech, which are relevant even now: [1] Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists (Ellen Spertus, 1991) https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7040 https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7040 [2] How to Encourage Women in Linux (Val Henson, 2002) https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/ https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/ [3] What Happens to Us Does Not Happen to Most of You (Kathryn S. McKinley, 2018) https://www.sigarch.org/what-happens-to-us-does-not-happen-to-most-of-you/ https://www.sigarch.org/what-happens-to-us-does-not-happen-t... [4] Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, 2001) https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-Press/dp/0262632691 https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-P...
• wvh 6y ago
  Well put. This is in my eyes the biggest problem with the whole "politically correct" and identity politics movement: it assume the worst of people digressing a chosen subjective universal ideal, in the process singling out lots of individuals despite the self-proclaimed goal of diversity and acceptance. It's pretty warped to demand respect for your own personal difficulties and particularities while bashing others for theirs, or in other words, demand to be treated with respect as a human being while failing to see the human in others.
• gwd 6y ago
  If someone is consistently failing to do the necessary part of a job, then it doesn't matter why they are consistently failing; they must be asked to step down and not do that job. One of the responsibilities of anyone in power is to avoid emboldening sexual predators and silencing victims. Anyone in power who does that should be called out; and anyone who continues to do it after being called out should be asked to step down. Let me start by saying that Stallman's words defending Minsky have absolutely been misinterpreted. He did not say that Guiffre was "entirely willing". And given that the age of consent in most of Europe is 16 or below [1], I think it's hypocritical for so many people to be outraged about Stallman saying maybe 17 isn't so bad. Nonetheless, his defense of Minsky is still problematic. Why? Because in the hypothetical situation he described, Minsky had sex with Guiffre even though he should have seen red flags. (Don't get distracted here by arguing that Minsky did see red flags and didn't actually sleep with Guiffre. That's not the point: Stallman still defended Minsky as though he had.) By defending Minsky, he was indicating to all future sexual predators, "I will try to find excuses to defend your bad behavior"; and to all future sexual victims, "There is no point in coming forward; I will try to excuse the person who did this to you." Now maybe Stallman didn't realize that's what he was doing; and maybe the reason he didn't realize it was because his brain is wired differently, which makes it difficult for him somehow. If so, we can cut him some slack personally; but it doesn't change the fact that it's harmful to have him in leadership. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
  • elric 6y ago
    Age of consent is seriously tricky business. And I think that's in part because it's really two things which are muddled together: young people having sex with each other; and older people having sex with younger people. It is absolutely fine for young people to consent to having sex with other young people. A minimum age makes little sense there. Very young kids do stupid things all the time, including touching each other's genitals. By some definitions, if two toddlers "play doctor", the older one is somehow a criminal. That seems insane. I remember being 14 and doing sexual things with my 15 year old girlfriend. At that point we were both falling foul of the law. But once she turned 16, she was suddenly a pedophile and a stutory rapist because I was only 15? Again, that seems insane. Then there's the issue of older people having sexual relations with younger people. This is where things become a lot more complex. It's pretty clear that it's inappropriate when authority figures are involved (e.g. teacher and underaged student). But then that can be inappropriate regardless of age. I can't imagine 14 year old me having been sexually interested in anyone over the age of 30, but that seems entirely arbitrary and subject to taste. I can certainly imagine 14 year old me thinking that my sex life wasn't anyone else's business. Some 14 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Yet the former somehow can't consent to anything, but the latter can consent to sex with anyone aged 16-120+? Age is a pretty good proxy for maturity on a population scale, but it's a really lousy proxy on an individual level. Perhaps we, as a society, would do well to remember that individual differences can be huge, and that consent is more important than merely the age.
• hutzlibu 6y ago
  Accepting people to be weird is not the same thing as accepting people to be insensitive assholes. Especially not in leadership positions.
• secondcoming 6y ago
  It also an issue I have with Codes of Conduct. There was a person who posted to the LKML about his autism and concerns over unintentionally violating the CoC, and whether he should continue to contribute or not. I don't recall anyone replying to him and his concerns either. Computing can possibly be considered a 'safe space' for people like the above but that has now been dismantled to suit other people. Who owns the safe spaces? I'm not condoning people being assholes, BTW.
  • dale_glass 6y ago
    On LKML I'm not really seeing the difficulty. Just stick to the point: "Here's a patch that does X, Y, and Z". If having to criticize something do it on technical grounds: "This part here is wrong because it's possible to go past the end of the buffer in this case". I know that some people sometimes post colorful rants on there, but I don't think it adds anything good to the atmosphere, and any time spent on coming up with florid prose could be spent on code that actually does something useful instead.
• YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  How do we know that Richard Stallman is autistic?
• spicybright 6y ago
  I think in recent years people are being criticized for what they say rather than what they do, as if saying it is the same as doing it. You should be able to hold a negative viewpoint as long as you don't act on it.
• JohnBooty 6y ago
  Celebrating neurodiversity is crucial! It is in my view a very basic human rights issue. However it does not, or at least should not, extend to excusing/permitting behaviors that hurt others. Much human anguish and suffering could be alleviated if we had a greater understanding of one simple truth: "your rights end where mine begin." On balance, I think RMS is ultimately a person who has greatly benefited the world. However, the stories of people made uncomfortable by his actions and statements are legion and in a more practical sense are detrimental to his cause. How can folks with with/under him when he's behaving in some of these ways? Why does the leader of the FSF even need to be broadcasting his beliefs that Minsky did nothing wrong when he had sex with a 17 year-old provided to him by a child trafficker? As somebody who (like most folks on HN, probably) is not exactly "neurotypical", I realize that it's part of my responsibility to moderate my own words and actions if I want to take part in society.
  • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I just fundamentally reject the equivalence between “hurt” and “uncomfortable”. The idea that people have a moral obligation to be normal, that I’ve been injured when someone acts weird or offers distasteful opinions, could come straight out of a Moral Majority handbook. It only makes sense from within a strict monoculture, where everyone feels obligated to conform and confident that the things they have to conform with are unchanging.
    • JohnBooty 6y ago
      This is not about a strict monoculture. You can have a robust and diverse culture in which there's broad agreement that a few things are bad - murder, slavery, sex with minors, etc. RMS defended Minsky's sex with a minor and perhaps more relevantly if we read the linked articles, it's part of a longstanding trend with him. And he feels the need to push these views on others in a workplace/academic setting, via mailing lists.
      • buisi 6y ago
        To be fair, he voiced most of his opinions on his personal blog, and not on the mailing list. His personal blog is presumably a place which you would peruse, if you wanted to know what his personal views on things are, and it was so obscure that seemingly no one knew of it until someone really went digging. Not only that, but he didn't even make these views with any particular frequency. One was made in 2006. Another six years later. So, a couple of comments he casually tossed out over decades, in a place where he would have expected few to ever see it. To be clear, I don't agree with many of his opinions (some suggest he might have worded his opinions really, really badly, and might mean something else), although I agree with one original blog post he referenced, where child porn laws have become so stretched they're being applied in places they were never originally intended to be. Like someone recording evidence to provide to the police of their children behaving in an overtly sexual manner which could be an indicator of abuse, arresting someone for a drawing which is a serious waste of police resources, the risk that someone can't reference historical images like the one from Vietnam, and so on. On the mailing list, he responded in a literal fashion taking the premise that Minsky had been misled. Unfortunately, it was poorly worded. If he had simply said that, rather than going on about her "presenting herself", or the other utterances, then it wouldn't even be a story.
• Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Neurodivergence does not excuse you for being called out for toxic behaviour. You're still responsible for your own actions, and to be very blunt, if your neurodivergence is that troublesome you should not be in power. I mean a lot of leaders have a neurodivergent condition where they don't give a shit about their subjects or employees (psychopathy), all they care about is themselves, their coke addiction, and making money for themselves and their shareholders. Just because you're autistic doesn't mean you're not responsible for the things you do or say.
• jedimastert 6y ago
  I've always been against this scarlet letter mentality that seems pervasive. I've also been vocally against RMS's particular brand of outreach as being incredibly alienating of the people whose opinions he actually needs to address. Admittedly, if he does have autism there's a ton of things that start to make sense, speaking from my own experiences with and around it, but I can't actually find a reference to any confirmed diagnosis from him. He's said he "suspects" as such, and I might as well, but it doesn't really help as neither of us are trained professionals. That being said, from my experience with autistic folks and what I know about him, it's not super surprising that he wouldn't get himself actually diagnosed or checked.
  • unanswered 6y ago
    Would his getting a diagnosis and publicly sharing that private medical information make you start treating him as an actual human being, or nah?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • jedimastert 6y ago
      I would disagree with his rhetorical stylings whether or not he had autism, and probably wouldn't change much in the way of how I disagreed or really talked about him. > publicly sharing that private medical information Are we gonna side-step the fact that he's publicly stated in several interviews that he suspects that he's on the spectrum, or nah? > make you start treating him as an actual human being In what way have I not?
      • unanswered 6y ago
        > In what way have I not? Publicly speculating about medical diagnoses, for one thing.
        • jedimastert 6y ago
• user-the-name 6y ago
  How dare you use neurodivergent people as a shield for a sexual harasser. How dare you.
• bluehat 6y ago
  Neurodivergent folks often need a little extra time to learn or for somebody to sit down and explain things to clearly. We do not need a carte blanche for decades of sexual harassment. That's just somebody being an asshole and using us as a shield.