5 ms·

Stallman is the public face of the FSF, by him being in the position that he is in, everything he says is representative of what the FSF stands for. It is preci

Stallman is the public face of the FSF, by him being in the position that he is in, everything he says is representative of what the FSF stands for. It is precisely about whether he is a good PR person.

olalonde 6y ago
The open letter goes much further than that: > These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. It's not: we need someone a bit less weird to be our PR person. It's: we need to cancel this person completely out of tech due to their "problematic opinions".
- coolreader18 6y ago
  Have you looked at the appendix[0]? They seem a bit more than just "problematic". 2013: "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children." 2015: "I wish an attractive woman had "abused" me that way when I was 14. I would have learned many important things and had a much happier life." 2016, on Down's syndrome: "If you'd like to love and care for a pet that doesn't have normal human mental capacity, don't create a handicapped human being to be your pet." 2017: "[..] together with the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as "rape" even if they are willing, [..]" To be honest, the parts on transphobia seem a bit overblown; he does seem to be accepting of different gender identities (and even plurality), but still doesn't like the use of they as a singular specific pronoun. However, I just really don't think it's necessary to re-admit someone with those ^ views to the board of an organization. [0]: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    To the first two statements: Well, is he right or wrong? The first statement can be checked by looking at the literature. For the second statement, Stallman himself is in the best position to judge that. The third statement is certainly rude, insulting, and uncharitable (it's not true-false so can't be judged that way). The fourth statement is, technically, an argument about a definition, though it suggests a view I shall address below. The problem about child sex and the age of consent is this: Some people are "ready" for sex (in the sense that it won't be traumatic—or is unlikely to be traumatic, anyway; I suspect it's a matter of probability, never of complete certainty) at a certain age, while others are not ready even if they think they are. I'm sure there are 22-year-olds who aren't ready for sex, and 12-year-olds who are. Unfortunately, I haven't heard of any psychological test to determine whether someone is ready. (Which isn't to say that such a test is impossible. In fact, if there were something analogous to "driving school" that taught people the basics of sex and gave them some practice—run, of course, by consummate professionals—I suspect that would be a much better way of helping people mature sexually while minimizing the risk of trauma. But that seems unlikely to be politically feasible.) So instead there's this "age of consent" thing, which just sets an arbitrary age limit as an approximation—obviously arbitrary in that it varies from place to place. This fails to protect those who are immature for their age, and it is a violation of the autonomy of those who mature earlier. (For illustration, imagine if my middle school science teacher had her way—"No sex 'til you're 25", because that's when the brain's frontal lobe finishes developing.) Some people think this is an acceptable tradeoff. Others reject it, perhaps considering it unprincipled and unjust. "Just because some people in a group can't handle it, that doesn't justify banning it for the entire group." (For example, some adults over 21 clearly can't handle alcohol—get addicted, become violent drunks, and end up ruining their own and others' lives—yet I don't hear people advocating the return of Prohibition.) Characteristics that would make someone likely to object to age-of-consent laws: (a) maturing early, putting them on the "it violates my autonomy" side; (b) caring strongly about people's autonomy in general; (c) caring strongly about principles; (d) subscribing to a modern, left-associated "sex really isn't that special; norms against it probably come from religious prudes from past generations" view; (e) not being shy about holding and expressing controversial opinions. I think the above explains how Stallman came to his views (as well as some others I won't name). As for how someone might reject those views—well, Stallman himself said: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that." I might add another factor: some people, especially children, are very passive and vulnerable to social pressure, especially from adults, and from those people a "yes" may not mean very much, nor can they be trusted to say "stop, I don't like it anymore"; obviously Stallman is extremely resistant to social pressure, and I suspect he found it hard to take that scenario seriously (if it even occurred to him) until someone gave him real examples of it.
    - lamontcg 6y ago
      As someone in their 40s, someone my age shouldn't be fucking 16 year olds, much less 12 year olds. And I don't need a wall of text to support that opinion, and it doesn't matter what the law says or doesn't say. Old dudes thirsting after teenagers is at the very least just fucking embarrassing.
      - waterhouse 6y ago
        You might be interested by Jane Austen's third most popular novel, "Sense and Sensibility", which has been adapted into TV series and movies several times, and favorably depicts a 17-year-old girl's romance with a colonel in his forties.
        lamontcg 6y ago
        I wouldn't.
      - salawat 6y ago
        Screw it, how'd you fou feel about a younger fellow with an older woman? Or a young woman thirsting over an older man? I really think you're discounting the fact there are two individuals involved here. As someone still within a stone's throw of that turbid time of hormonally driven adolescence, I assure you, one does no kindness leaving some to be predated upon. I mean, hell, I've seen the occasional "I prefer the smell of perfume to Liniment oil" couple, and it always raises an eyebrow or two, but if the relationship is healthy, nobody really has any room to judge. >And I don't need a wall of text to support that opinion Maybe not, but in a conversation, it is generally in the best interests of everyone involved to lay their cards and reasoning on the table to minimize potential misunderstandings. This is something I've noticed a lot of older folks have trouble with at times. Hell I even struggle with it, but I work hard regardless to bring my years with me to help out the youngers. Without those of us who've been there to help them know how the world got to where it is, how ever are they to learn how to do the same, and avoid making the same screwups we did?
salawat 6y ago
Stallman is still, and always will be, Stallman. An independent agent with his own thoughts, opinions, dreams, desires, and life. And ya know what? That's okay. Foundations aren't their Founders and Founders aren't their Foundations. Both should be focused on their missions, but both are a cumulative sum of their parts plus a bit more. Given a choice of leader, I'll stick with the one eccentric who from the start knew exactly the direction industry and politics would go. I'll take the guy with 40 year success streak of being able to say "Called it!", who refuses to give one inch on the principles behind free software to the point he's inconenienced himself to stay true to them in a world being increasingly eaten by proprietary software, over the wannabe social media influencers who can't even successfully comprehend the content of an email, or understand the difference between caring about concise language and adherence to consistent internal principles and transphobia. Also, to be quite frank, given the cancel movement's continual habit on getting called out for being fast and loose with facts, I think they need to reconsider their PR strategy. Talk out the side of your mouth is cheap. Lies and misinformation even more so. At least what Stallman says is backed by his actions, and his continued steadfast support of the organization that threw him out unjustly. I really don't think most people understand just what level of commitment to a cause that takes, and I think if half the people concerned about his "problematic opinions" would focus on issues in that sphere on a platform that isn't the FSF, the world may legitimately become a better place. Instead, you just get this token drama that holds the State of the Art back. I swear, if I ever pull off independent wealth enough to take an extended sabbatical I'll come take someones position to unburden their conscience of working with the likes of Stallman or Linus, or whoever the world is dumping on for carrying the progress of Free Software forward. Never seen a group of people so disenfranchised with literally carrying a legacy to the species on their backs that they have to start eating each other to continue making the experience bearable. The entire world of proprietary software and all the adherents there of want division. They want chaos that detracts from the quality of Free Software. They want infighting, they want a more manipulable figurehead. They want work they can steal, make their own, then hold society hostage for access to. The only one with their eye on the ball seems to be the very GNUisance everyone wishes to condemn. That's the world we live in now I guess. Nothing but ultimatums and outrage.

olalonde 6y ago

The open letter goes much further than that: > These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. It's not: we need someone a bit less weird to be our PR person. It's: we need to cancel this person completely out of tech due to their "problematic opinions".

coolreader18 6y ago
Have you looked at the appendix[0]? They seem a bit more than just "problematic". 2013: "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children." 2015: "I wish an attractive woman had "abused" me that way when I was 14. I would have learned many important things and had a much happier life." 2016, on Down's syndrome: "If you'd like to love and care for a pet that doesn't have normal human mental capacity, don't create a handicapped human being to be your pet." 2017: "[..] together with the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as "rape" even if they are willing, [..]" To be honest, the parts on transphobia seem a bit overblown; he does seem to be accepting of different gender identities (and even plurality), but still doesn't like the use of they as a singular specific pronoun. However, I just really don't think it's necessary to re-admit someone with those ^ views to the board of an organization. [0]: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix
- waterhouse 6y ago
  To the first two statements: Well, is he right or wrong? The first statement can be checked by looking at the literature. For the second statement, Stallman himself is in the best position to judge that. The third statement is certainly rude, insulting, and uncharitable (it's not true-false so can't be judged that way). The fourth statement is, technically, an argument about a definition, though it suggests a view I shall address below. The problem about child sex and the age of consent is this: Some people are "ready" for sex (in the sense that it won't be traumatic—or is unlikely to be traumatic, anyway; I suspect it's a matter of probability, never of complete certainty) at a certain age, while others are not ready even if they think they are. I'm sure there are 22-year-olds who aren't ready for sex, and 12-year-olds who are. Unfortunately, I haven't heard of any psychological test to determine whether someone is ready. (Which isn't to say that such a test is impossible. In fact, if there were something analogous to "driving school" that taught people the basics of sex and gave them some practice—run, of course, by consummate professionals—I suspect that would be a much better way of helping people mature sexually while minimizing the risk of trauma. But that seems unlikely to be politically feasible.) So instead there's this "age of consent" thing, which just sets an arbitrary age limit as an approximation—obviously arbitrary in that it varies from place to place. This fails to protect those who are immature for their age, and it is a violation of the autonomy of those who mature earlier. (For illustration, imagine if my middle school science teacher had her way—"No sex 'til you're 25", because that's when the brain's frontal lobe finishes developing.) Some people think this is an acceptable tradeoff. Others reject it, perhaps considering it unprincipled and unjust. "Just because some people in a group can't handle it, that doesn't justify banning it for the entire group." (For example, some adults over 21 clearly can't handle alcohol—get addicted, become violent drunks, and end up ruining their own and others' lives—yet I don't hear people advocating the return of Prohibition.) Characteristics that would make someone likely to object to age-of-consent laws: (a) maturing early, putting them on the "it violates my autonomy" side; (b) caring strongly about people's autonomy in general; (c) caring strongly about principles; (d) subscribing to a modern, left-associated "sex really isn't that special; norms against it probably come from religious prudes from past generations" view; (e) not being shy about holding and expressing controversial opinions. I think the above explains how Stallman came to his views (as well as some others I won't name). As for how someone might reject those views—well, Stallman himself said: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that." I might add another factor: some people, especially children, are very passive and vulnerable to social pressure, especially from adults, and from those people a "yes" may not mean very much, nor can they be trusted to say "stop, I don't like it anymore"; obviously Stallman is extremely resistant to social pressure, and I suspect he found it hard to take that scenario seriously (if it even occurred to him) until someone gave him real examples of it.
  - lamontcg 6y ago
    As someone in their 40s, someone my age shouldn't be fucking 16 year olds, much less 12 year olds. And I don't need a wall of text to support that opinion, and it doesn't matter what the law says or doesn't say. Old dudes thirsting after teenagers is at the very least just fucking embarrassing.
    - waterhouse 6y ago
      You might be interested by Jane Austen's third most popular novel, "Sense and Sensibility", which has been adapted into TV series and movies several times, and favorably depicts a 17-year-old girl's romance with a colonel in his forties.
      - lamontcg 6y ago
        I wouldn't.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Screw it, how'd you fou feel about a younger fellow with an older woman? Or a young woman thirsting over an older man? I really think you're discounting the fact there are two individuals involved here. As someone still within a stone's throw of that turbid time of hormonally driven adolescence, I assure you, one does no kindness leaving some to be predated upon. I mean, hell, I've seen the occasional "I prefer the smell of perfume to Liniment oil" couple, and it always raises an eyebrow or two, but if the relationship is healthy, nobody really has any room to judge. >And I don't need a wall of text to support that opinion Maybe not, but in a conversation, it is generally in the best interests of everyone involved to lay their cards and reasoning on the table to minimize potential misunderstandings. This is something I've noticed a lot of older folks have trouble with at times. Hell I even struggle with it, but I work hard regardless to bring my years with me to help out the youngers. Without those of us who've been there to help them know how the world got to where it is, how ever are they to learn how to do the same, and avoid making the same screwups we did?

salawat 6y ago

Stallman is still, and always will be, Stallman. An independent agent with his own thoughts, opinions, dreams, desires, and life. And ya know what? That's okay. Foundations aren't their Founders and Founders aren't their Foundations. Both should be focused on their missions, but both are a cumulative sum of their parts plus a bit more. Given a choice of leader, I'll stick with the one eccentric who from the start knew exactly the direction industry and politics would go. I'll take the guy with 40 year success streak of being able to say "Called it!", who refuses to give one inch on the principles behind free software to the point he's inconenienced himself to stay true to them in a world being increasingly eaten by proprietary software, over the wannabe social media influencers who can't even successfully comprehend the content of an email, or understand the difference between caring about concise language and adherence to consistent internal principles and transphobia. Also, to be quite frank, given the cancel movement's continual habit on getting called out for being fast and loose with facts, I think they need to reconsider their PR strategy. Talk out the side of your mouth is cheap. Lies and misinformation even more so. At least what Stallman says is backed by his actions, and his continued steadfast support of the organization that threw him out unjustly. I really don't think most people understand just what level of commitment to a cause that takes, and I think if half the people concerned about his "problematic opinions" would focus on issues in that sphere on a platform that isn't the FSF, the world may legitimately become a better place. Instead, you just get this token drama that holds the State of the Art back. I swear, if I ever pull off independent wealth enough to take an extended sabbatical I'll come take someones position to unburden their conscience of working with the likes of Stallman or Linus, or whoever the world is dumping on for carrying the progress of Free Software forward. Never seen a group of people so disenfranchised with literally carrying a legacy to the species on their backs that they have to start eating each other to continue making the experience bearable. The entire world of proprietary software and all the adherents there of want division. They want chaos that detracts from the quality of Free Software. They want infighting, they want a more manipulable figurehead. They want work they can steal, make their own, then hold society hostage for access to. The only one with their eye on the ball seems to be the very GNUisance everyone wishes to condemn. That's the world we live in now I guess. Nothing but ultimatums and outrage.