5 ms·

Richard says he's not autistic. People who try to conflate his bad behaviour and autism are excusing his behaviour and unfairly generalising about autistic peop

by jdub 6y ago

Richard says he's not autistic. People who try to conflate his bad behaviour and autism are excusing his behaviour and unfairly generalising about autistic people. Richard is argumentative about his bad behaviour. He's not oblivious. Plenty of people have spoken to him about it. You'd think he might take a hint after being removed from his own organisation and all the surrounding commentary. He doesn't care. (Separately, "techrights" is run by an obsessive troll who harasses people in the FLOSS community.)

blagie 6y ago
No, I think claiming one can extrapolate from one particular autistic person to all autistic people is "unfairly generalising about autistic people." Autism is a broad spectrum (and far from unidimensional) which manifests in a broad diversity of ways. I'll generally excuse people who are trying to do the right thing. Richard is trying to do the right thing. If you don't, you'll do very badly in other cultures. By US standards, most cultures do things which are extremely abusive or neglectful (and vice-versa). I will also mention autism is a psychological term defined in DSM, not a self-identity term. Many people who are autistic don't believe they are, and vice-versa. It's not a personal choice.
- jdub 6y ago
  He doesn't do the right thing. He becomes agitated and sometimes aggressive when anyone points out that they're uncomfortable with his behaviour. He is not interested in their perspective or comfort.
  - blagie 6y ago
    You're even more confused. Please reread: "I'll generally excuse people who are trying to do the right thing. Richard is trying to do the right thing." I understand within your cultural frame and value system, ethical behavior is defined with regards to other people's comfort. That's not true for Richard (not for the culture I was born in, for that matter; I don't much care if people around me feel comfortable, nor if they make me feel comfortable, although I do know how to code switch, and do so in professional settings so as to be successful in the US). Cross-cultural fluency involves being able to interact with people with different value systems. People in the Middle East, China, or Russia will have very different views of what the right thing is from yourself. I've almost never met a person who tried as hard to do what *they* (not you, not me) believed was right as Richard.
    - jdub 6y ago
      I'm not confused. It's possible to do the right thing in the large and in the small at the same time. Using cross-cultural fluency to defend Richard Stallman, who doesn't care one iota about cross-cultural fluency, and constantly embarrasses people inside and outside his own culture, is weird.
      - mam2 6y ago
        The person above you is just saying that outrage cuture is not always "right". Its not even about cultural differences
      - blagie 6y ago
        You're completely confused. What constitutes the right thing is specific to culture. Culture a lot of components (nationality/ethnicity, professional culture, neurodiversity, etc.). You're imposing your value system on Richard. You're being called on it, and you're doubling down, which is exactly what you fault Richard for. Two posts in, you should know better. From within Richard's cultural frame, he's doing the right thing in both the large and the small. Making people feel uncomfortable, embarrassing people, and otherwise are perfectly valid tactics for achieving change in many cultures; just not the one you're from. The extreme emphasis on politeness is very Western (although many Confucian cultures have something similar in the concept of face). And although it might seem weird to you for me to be making arguments from cross-cultural fluency, Richard would be a hypocrite if he were making an argument from cross-cultural fluency, but he's not, and I'm not Richard. I've made the same argument to Americans acting inappropriately in all sorts of countries, even though in many of those cultures neither had (not, often, valued) cross-cultural fluency. I'm sorry, but you're being wrong in both the large and small things, just as much as an American in Iran or Japan expecting everyone to behave like them, and talking about how people are either jerks or overly generous when they behave differently, or when Americans talk aabout how cultures have bad attitudes towards children/women/education/civil rights/etc., or are just plain weird.
        jdub 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you're still harping on about culture, as if Richard hasn't misbehaved and offended people everywhere he's been. And don't conflate his personal behaviour with "tactics for achieving change".
mpweiher 6y ago
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -- George Bernard Shaw
tablespoon 6y ago
> Richard says he's not autistic. People who try to conflate his bad behaviour and autism are excusing his behaviour and unfairly generalising about autistic people. Upthread someone made a pretty convincing argument that he has no idea what he's talking about on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537802
zwhitchcox 6y ago
But he didn't even say the stuff people say he did. It's literally just a witchhunt. Let's not pretend that people are even mad at him for anything he did. It's just journalists contorting facts to make a good story, and Silicon Valley's inability to discern truth.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Assuming for a moment that he didn't say it: that just shows that he's incompetent at communication. Since that's an intrinsic part of his job it shows he's not suitable for the position. If he'd ever showed any sign that he wanted to improve people might be a bit more tolerant. He's had years to put support in place, and he's declined to do so. He keeps blaming lack of understanding on other people - [I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said, vs I'm sorry I said what I said]. And now we have dozens of people who describe the harassment and aggression they faced when working with him. People defending RMS on HN want it both ways: when allegations are made these people will say "it's unfair to put this in public; complaints need to be dealt with in private". But then when we're trying to talk about RMS's behaviours those same people will ask for huge amounts of detail in order to litigate the accusations. It's an inconsistent approach that's driven by defending RMS rather than wanting to find out what the truth is.

by jdub 6y ago

blagie 6y ago

No, I think claiming one can extrapolate from one particular autistic person to all autistic people is "unfairly generalising about autistic people." Autism is a broad spectrum (and far from unidimensional) which manifests in a broad diversity of ways. I'll generally excuse people who are trying to do the right thing. Richard is trying to do the right thing. If you don't, you'll do very badly in other cultures. By US standards, most cultures do things which are extremely abusive or neglectful (and vice-versa). I will also mention autism is a psychological term defined in DSM, not a self-identity term. Many people who are autistic don't believe they are, and vice-versa. It's not a personal choice.

jdub 6y ago
He doesn't do the right thing. He becomes agitated and sometimes aggressive when anyone points out that they're uncomfortable with his behaviour. He is not interested in their perspective or comfort.
- blagie 6y ago
  You're even more confused. Please reread: "I'll generally excuse people who are trying to do the right thing. Richard is trying to do the right thing." I understand within your cultural frame and value system, ethical behavior is defined with regards to other people's comfort. That's not true for Richard (not for the culture I was born in, for that matter; I don't much care if people around me feel comfortable, nor if they make me feel comfortable, although I do know how to code switch, and do so in professional settings so as to be successful in the US). Cross-cultural fluency involves being able to interact with people with different value systems. People in the Middle East, China, or Russia will have very different views of what the right thing is from yourself. I've almost never met a person who tried as hard to do what *they* (not you, not me) believed was right as Richard.
  - jdub 6y ago
    I'm not confused. It's possible to do the right thing in the large and in the small at the same time. Using cross-cultural fluency to defend Richard Stallman, who doesn't care one iota about cross-cultural fluency, and constantly embarrasses people inside and outside his own culture, is weird.
    - mam2 6y ago
      The person above you is just saying that outrage cuture is not always "right". Its not even about cultural differences
    - blagie 6y ago
      You're completely confused. What constitutes the right thing is specific to culture. Culture a lot of components (nationality/ethnicity, professional culture, neurodiversity, etc.). You're imposing your value system on Richard. You're being called on it, and you're doubling down, which is exactly what you fault Richard for. Two posts in, you should know better. From within Richard's cultural frame, he's doing the right thing in both the large and the small. Making people feel uncomfortable, embarrassing people, and otherwise are perfectly valid tactics for achieving change in many cultures; just not the one you're from. The extreme emphasis on politeness is very Western (although many Confucian cultures have something similar in the concept of face). And although it might seem weird to you for me to be making arguments from cross-cultural fluency, Richard would be a hypocrite if he were making an argument from cross-cultural fluency, but he's not, and I'm not Richard. I've made the same argument to Americans acting inappropriately in all sorts of countries, even though in many of those cultures neither had (not, often, valued) cross-cultural fluency. I'm sorry, but you're being wrong in both the large and small things, just as much as an American in Iran or Japan expecting everyone to behave like them, and talking about how people are either jerks or overly generous when they behave differently, or when Americans talk aabout how cultures have bad attitudes towards children/women/education/civil rights/etc., or are just plain weird.
      - jdub 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you're still harping on about culture, as if Richard hasn't misbehaved and offended people everywhere he's been. And don't conflate his personal behaviour with "tactics for achieving change".

mpweiher 6y ago

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -- George Bernard Shaw

tablespoon 6y ago

> Richard says he's not autistic. People who try to conflate his bad behaviour and autism are excusing his behaviour and unfairly generalising about autistic people. Upthread someone made a pretty convincing argument that he has no idea what he's talking about on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537802

zwhitchcox 6y ago

But he didn't even say the stuff people say he did. It's literally just a witchhunt. Let's not pretend that people are even mad at him for anything he did. It's just journalists contorting facts to make a good story, and Silicon Valley's inability to discern truth.

DanBC 6y ago
Assuming for a moment that he didn't say it: that just shows that he's incompetent at communication. Since that's an intrinsic part of his job it shows he's not suitable for the position. If he'd ever showed any sign that he wanted to improve people might be a bit more tolerant. He's had years to put support in place, and he's declined to do so. He keeps blaming lack of understanding on other people - [I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said, vs I'm sorry I said what I said]. And now we have dozens of people who describe the harassment and aggression they faced when working with him. People defending RMS on HN want it both ways: when allegations are made these people will say "it's unfair to put this in public; complaints need to be dealt with in private". But then when we're trying to talk about RMS's behaviours those same people will ask for huge amounts of detail in order to litigate the accusations. It's an inconsistent approach that's driven by defending RMS rather than wanting to find out what the truth is.