5 ms·

Their reasoning for kicking him off is pretty weak. I'm taking these quotes from the list of incidents linked from the first. > Especially chilling is when St

Their reasoning for kicking him off is pretty weak. I'm taking these quotes from the list of incidents linked from the first. > Especially chilling is when Stallman addresses the accusations that Marvin Minsky sexually assaulted one of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking victims This incident as it was initially reported was fabricated. This letter admits that but tries to reify those fabrications by twisting his words. Saying that maybe his friend Minsky didn't realize what was happening is not defending Epstein or rape. > He regularly and repeatedly makes comments about “the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as ‘rape’ even if they are willing.” The US criminal code is not above criticism. From Stallman or anyone else. > He recommended that, should someone find out they are pregnant and the child tests positive for Down’s syndrome “the right course of action for the woman is to terminate the pregnancy.” Not really an uncommon opinion. The movement to not abort down syndrome babies was really an offshoot of the pro-life movement. Stallman is vocally not pro-life, and you really shouldn't expect him to be. If he believes sometimes abortion is the right choice, more power to him. > RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns. This is poorly disguised transphobia. Having literary standards is not transphobic. There's no evidence Stallman ever prevented someone from participating because of their identity. There's no evidence Stallman doesn't mean what he says or that he says and speaks coded language only his detractors understand. These signees should do better. EDIT: Removed "Stallman-phobic" wording. Even if that's an apt description the phrasing has proved distracting in a different comment thread.

neolog 6y ago
Stallman recommends the singular gender-neutral pronouns "person/per/pers" [1]. [1] https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
untitaker_ 6y ago
This really has nothing to do with whether you find those positions agreeable or not. You have to understand that the core argument here is that Stallman is unfit to lead an organization that is supposed to be welcoming to all kinds of people, and that includes people with down syndrome or rape victims. The point is that constantly being the center of controversy is not helping here, not that any of those positions are reasons to make him homeless (which is still very much a step further than removing him from a position of power). >There's no evidence Stallman ever prevented someone from participating because of their identity. The standard for being in a leadership position is usually much higher than the one that a regular employee/IC is held up against. Stallman is the public face of an organization comprised of a lot of people. Everything he says publicly is representative of what the FSF stands for.
- creamytaco 6y ago
  RMS has devoted his life to free software and has done more to promote it than anybody else on the planet combined. If some unique snowflakes with serious mental issues (how else would you describe their misrepresentations of what RMS actually said, picking-and-choosing statements out of context and repeated character assassination attempts) don't find this welcoming, the issue lies with them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > You have to understand that the core argument here is that Stallman is unfit to lead an organization that is supposed to be welcoming to all kinds of people Who is "fit to lead" by this standard? The FLOSS community also includes many people who align themselves with various sorts of social traditionalism and are quite skeptical of any fringe notion of social "progress". The kind of FSF board or leadership that promoters of this open letter might perhaps demand would be wholly contrary to such people's lived experience. There is no solution that can satisfy everyone, other than increased toleration of differing views.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >There is no solution that can satisfy everyone, other than increased toleration of differing views. ... except for anyone critical of Stallman, his behavior or his views, because they're nothing but a frothing mob of Marxist SJWs who wanted to ruin some poor autistic man's life for kicks, or pawns of the proprietary software establishment out to destroy Free Software. Come on - we've probably had a dozen threads about RMS and this controversy by now, and multiple thousands of comments by his many supporters on this forum, and I could probably count the ones that expressed anything but pure contempt for any view besides "Stallman did nothing wrong" on one hand.
DiabloD3 6y ago
I, too, have an issue with people jumping on "RMS has transphobia" bandwagon without actually reading his words. He is argument boils down to, some languages have four (or more) sets of pronouns: male, female, single and/or plural of people that is genderless (either explicitly or implicitly), singular and/or plural of inanimate object(s). English has male, female, plural of people that is explicitly genderless (but not singular), and singular only of inanimate objects (but not plural). We don't have a pronoun that can fit a singular third gender or genderless reference. Using they as a singular pronoun in any situation often leads to awkward speech. Other languages do other things, such as inanimate objects often being referred to with male or female pronouns (independent of having a singular inanimate pronouns), having both singular and plural inanimate object pronouns, or having singular genderless pronouns. Adding additional words to English may be required to deal with people who do not wish to use male or female pronouns, but also do not wish to be called an it, or be forced to be called a they inappropriately (since they are not a plural, nor a royal we). Such words should appear similar to regular words, such words should be also standardized and regulated. /End of RMS boiling down: at no point does he say trans people don't deserve pronouns that can fit their needs, he only illustrates that how we handle it now is not a good solution.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > English has male, female, plural of people that is explicitly genderless (but not singular), and singular only of inanimate objects (but not plural). We don't have a pronoun that can fit a singular third gender or genderless reference. Except that we do. Singular "they" has been used since Shakespeare. And you likely use singular they in your normal speech. When you don't know anything about a particular person, you ask about their attributes. Who they are and what they like, what their name is. > Adding additional words to English may be required to deal with people who do not wish to use male or female pronouns, but also do not wish to be called an it Indeed, and we generally do this by asking what those people want to be called, not by prescribing what they are allowed to be called. Prescriptivist language is both ineffective and rude, much as you trying to tell me what my name is is rude. That said, even if you're interested in prescriptivist approaches, Merriam-Webster[0], and the OED[1] recognize singular they, as do the APA, NYT, and WaPo style guides. Singular they, for a nonbinary person who prefers the pronoun, or for a person of unknown gender, is the standard. Stallman is the one causing needless conflict by trying to push a different approach when there already is a standard. [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbi... [1]: https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...

neolog 6y ago

Stallman recommends the singular gender-neutral pronouns "person/per/pers" [1]. [1] https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html

untitaker_ 6y ago

This really has nothing to do with whether you find those positions agreeable or not. You have to understand that the core argument here is that Stallman is unfit to lead an organization that is supposed to be welcoming to all kinds of people, and that includes people with down syndrome or rape victims. The point is that constantly being the center of controversy is not helping here, not that any of those positions are reasons to make him homeless (which is still very much a step further than removing him from a position of power). >There's no evidence Stallman ever prevented someone from participating because of their identity. The standard for being in a leadership position is usually much higher than the one that a regular employee/IC is held up against. Stallman is the public face of an organization comprised of a lot of people. Everything he says publicly is representative of what the FSF stands for.

creamytaco 6y ago
RMS has devoted his life to free software and has done more to promote it than anybody else on the planet combined. If some unique snowflakes with serious mental issues (how else would you describe their misrepresentations of what RMS actually said, picking-and-choosing statements out of context and repeated character assassination attempts) don't find this welcoming, the issue lies with them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
zozbot234 6y ago
> You have to understand that the core argument here is that Stallman is unfit to lead an organization that is supposed to be welcoming to all kinds of people Who is "fit to lead" by this standard? The FLOSS community also includes many people who align themselves with various sorts of social traditionalism and are quite skeptical of any fringe notion of social "progress". The kind of FSF board or leadership that promoters of this open letter might perhaps demand would be wholly contrary to such people's lived experience. There is no solution that can satisfy everyone, other than increased toleration of differing views.
- krapp 6y ago
  >There is no solution that can satisfy everyone, other than increased toleration of differing views. ... except for anyone critical of Stallman, his behavior or his views, because they're nothing but a frothing mob of Marxist SJWs who wanted to ruin some poor autistic man's life for kicks, or pawns of the proprietary software establishment out to destroy Free Software. Come on - we've probably had a dozen threads about RMS and this controversy by now, and multiple thousands of comments by his many supporters on this forum, and I could probably count the ones that expressed anything but pure contempt for any view besides "Stallman did nothing wrong" on one hand.

DiabloD3 6y ago

I, too, have an issue with people jumping on "RMS has transphobia" bandwagon without actually reading his words. He is argument boils down to, some languages have four (or more) sets of pronouns: male, female, single and/or plural of people that is genderless (either explicitly or implicitly), singular and/or plural of inanimate object(s). English has male, female, plural of people that is explicitly genderless (but not singular), and singular only of inanimate objects (but not plural). We don't have a pronoun that can fit a singular third gender or genderless reference. Using they as a singular pronoun in any situation often leads to awkward speech. Other languages do other things, such as inanimate objects often being referred to with male or female pronouns (independent of having a singular inanimate pronouns), having both singular and plural inanimate object pronouns, or having singular genderless pronouns. Adding additional words to English may be required to deal with people who do not wish to use male or female pronouns, but also do not wish to be called an it, or be forced to be called a they inappropriately (since they are not a plural, nor a royal we). Such words should appear similar to regular words, such words should be also standardized and regulated. /End of RMS boiling down: at no point does he say trans people don't deserve pronouns that can fit their needs, he only illustrates that how we handle it now is not a good solution.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> English has male, female, plural of people that is explicitly genderless (but not singular), and singular only of inanimate objects (but not plural). We don't have a pronoun that can fit a singular third gender or genderless reference. Except that we do. Singular "they" has been used since Shakespeare. And you likely use singular they in your normal speech. When you don't know anything about a particular person, you ask about their attributes. Who they are and what they like, what their name is. > Adding additional words to English may be required to deal with people who do not wish to use male or female pronouns, but also do not wish to be called an it Indeed, and we generally do this by asking what those people want to be called, not by prescribing what they are allowed to be called. Prescriptivist language is both ineffective and rude, much as you trying to tell me what my name is is rude. That said, even if you're interested in prescriptivist approaches, Merriam-Webster[0], and the OED[1] recognize singular they, as do the APA, NYT, and WaPo style guides. Singular they, for a nonbinary person who prefers the pronoun, or for a person of unknown gender, is the standard. Stallman is the one causing needless conflict by trying to push a different approach when there already is a standard. [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbi... [1]: https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...