5 ms·

I can be happy that the FSF exists, admire a number of the goals RMS has strived towards, and still be aghast and horrified by RMS's lack of personal boundaries

by fao_ 6y ago

I can be happy that the FSF exists, admire a number of the goals RMS has strived towards, and still be aghast and horrified by RMS's lack of personal boundaries[1], lack of respect for women[1], and specific pieces of writing that lived on his site for decades that were in favour of child abuse. I'm not sure how meditating on it is supposed to negate the latter. Nor how that is supposed to provide a space in which software is free of the shackles of the misogyny of the popular. [1]: Literally just listen to the women who have had to work along side him on the MIT campus for decades. The fact that it was a known fact in the whisper network on campus and that they had developed tactics for "dealing with it" shows you pretty much everything you need to know.

posix_me_less 6y ago
> pieces of writing that lived on his site for decades that were in favour of child abuse. Come on, that is very hard to believe.
- fao_ 6y ago
  Literally just look at the citations from the Ars Technica article. Which link to Stallman's own writing.
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    Not sure which Ars Technica article. Please give a link and citation and explain why that shows Stallman is in favour of child abuse. I don't think you will be able to do that.
taylodl 6y ago
>> Literally just listen to the women who have had to work along side him on the MIT campus for decades. I would like to listen to what they have to say. This is the first I'm hearing of this, and I've been following RMS and the FSF since their inception. The term "dealing with it" is too vague - are we talking sexual assault, sexual harassment, or RMS being difficult to work with? These are dramatically different scenarios yet they all require a means for "dealing with it." I'm taking you to task because you're now crossing the line from things RMS has said to things he may have done. If you're going to accuse RMS of sexual harassment then you're going to need to help bring this to light, not just spread hearsay. His alleged victims deserve that and the free software community needs to know the details of any alleged misconduct.
phkahler 6y ago
>> I'm not sure how meditating on it is supposed to negate the latter. That's because you haven't tried. You're biased in ways you don't see. I'm not pointing a finger or trying criticize here. You seem to have a lot of anger - figure out where that comes from.
- fao_ 6y ago
  > You're biased in ways you don't see I'm biased against inappropriate conduct towards people and a lack of respect for other people. I'm not even angry about this, just deeply disappointed in the FSF and their decision to put one man above the voices of countless people who he has repeatedly acted inappropriately towards and has neither acknowledged nor attempted to improve his behaviour.
  - klibertp 6y ago
    > put one man above the voices of countless people In other words, they chose to resist the cancel culture, stick to what they believe is right instead of appeasing an angry mob, and ignore the obviously ill-intended mischaracterizations spreading over the social media. I'd say they did a good job. A good read, referenced on Wikipedia: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web "Acting inappropriately" is not a crime. If you dislike his behavior, don't come near him - you're free to do so. Trying to force your way of thinking on him, instead, is wrong. The fact that he used to ask random women to have sex with him (actually, to "go out with him") does not make him misogynist. The fact that he said that "14 and above" people should be able to have sex if they want, and that "abstaining from sex after puberty is unnatural" does not make him a pedophile. The fact that he questions the use of "sexual assault" phrase in a situation where the "assaulted" person "appears entirely willing" does not make him a rapist. You might not like his "inappropriate conduct" and that's ok. He, on the other hand, might not like your standards of what is appropriate or not, and that's also ok. I, for one, don't like the hypocrisy and puritanism you seem to espouse. I wouldn't want to be your friend, what with having to worry about my "conduct" constantly. But that's ok, I don't have to be your friend. It's all good. At least until you start forcing your (to me - misguided) values on others, start forming a mob with the intention of lynching him (or me), and try to shame all the people with contrary views into silence.
klibertp 6y ago
> and specific pieces of writing that lived on his site for decades that were in favour of child abuse. He wrote that 14+ teens should be able to engage in sexual acts for fun, if they want. It's incredibly damning, right? And it's advocating child abuse. Meanwhile, billions of people live in jurisdictions where 12 year olds get routinely married to 3-4 times older people. But, it's Stallman with his benign and - in the civilized world - quite obvious claims that is so wrong that he should never again take part in public discourse! I can't, for the life of me, understand what's so wrong with people helping each other to orgasm. What's so damaging to the psyche in engaging in consensual sexual acts. Yes, people who didn't yet reach physiological sexual maturity should be protected, and obviously using any kind of force to elicit consent should be punished. Other than that? It's just sex - one of the healthier ways of feeling good. There are cultures where sex has been treated as a normal activity for adolescents for literally tens of thousands of years, where it only became a problem after colonial rule started enforcing taboos and rules alien to the indigenous peoples. Well, it has nothing to do with this discussion, so I'll end the rant here. My main point is that the twisted view of all sexual activity of young people as "child abuse" is wrong, as is using advocacy for the opposite (ie. treating sex as normal activity; this comment included) to discredit people. Please, try to rethink your stance on the matter. Or alternatively, point me to a quote which actually is "in favour of child abuse". I feel silly writing this, but I think I have to: actual, real child abuse is also, of course, wrong.

by fao_ 6y ago

posix_me_less 6y ago

> pieces of writing that lived on his site for decades that were in favour of child abuse. Come on, that is very hard to believe.

fao_ 6y ago
Literally just look at the citations from the Ars Technica article. Which link to Stallman's own writing.
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  Not sure which Ars Technica article. Please give a link and citation and explain why that shows Stallman is in favour of child abuse. I don't think you will be able to do that.

taylodl 6y ago

>> Literally just listen to the women who have had to work along side him on the MIT campus for decades. I would like to listen to what they have to say. This is the first I'm hearing of this, and I've been following RMS and the FSF since their inception. The term "dealing with it" is too vague - are we talking sexual assault, sexual harassment, or RMS being difficult to work with? These are dramatically different scenarios yet they all require a means for "dealing with it." I'm taking you to task because you're now crossing the line from things RMS has said to things he may have done. If you're going to accuse RMS of sexual harassment then you're going to need to help bring this to light, not just spread hearsay. His alleged victims deserve that and the free software community needs to know the details of any alleged misconduct.

phkahler 6y ago

>> I'm not sure how meditating on it is supposed to negate the latter. That's because you haven't tried. You're biased in ways you don't see. I'm not pointing a finger or trying criticize here. You seem to have a lot of anger - figure out where that comes from.

fao_ 6y ago
> You're biased in ways you don't see I'm biased against inappropriate conduct towards people and a lack of respect for other people. I'm not even angry about this, just deeply disappointed in the FSF and their decision to put one man above the voices of countless people who he has repeatedly acted inappropriately towards and has neither acknowledged nor attempted to improve his behaviour.
- klibertp 6y ago
  > put one man above the voices of countless people In other words, they chose to resist the cancel culture, stick to what they believe is right instead of appeasing an angry mob, and ignore the obviously ill-intended mischaracterizations spreading over the social media. I'd say they did a good job. A good read, referenced on Wikipedia: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web "Acting inappropriately" is not a crime. If you dislike his behavior, don't come near him - you're free to do so. Trying to force your way of thinking on him, instead, is wrong. The fact that he used to ask random women to have sex with him (actually, to "go out with him") does not make him misogynist. The fact that he said that "14 and above" people should be able to have sex if they want, and that "abstaining from sex after puberty is unnatural" does not make him a pedophile. The fact that he questions the use of "sexual assault" phrase in a situation where the "assaulted" person "appears entirely willing" does not make him a rapist. You might not like his "inappropriate conduct" and that's ok. He, on the other hand, might not like your standards of what is appropriate or not, and that's also ok. I, for one, don't like the hypocrisy and puritanism you seem to espouse. I wouldn't want to be your friend, what with having to worry about my "conduct" constantly. But that's ok, I don't have to be your friend. It's all good. At least until you start forcing your (to me - misguided) values on others, start forming a mob with the intention of lynching him (or me), and try to shame all the people with contrary views into silence.

klibertp 6y ago

> and specific pieces of writing that lived on his site for decades that were in favour of child abuse. He wrote that 14+ teens should be able to engage in sexual acts for fun, if they want. It's incredibly damning, right? And it's advocating child abuse. Meanwhile, billions of people live in jurisdictions where 12 year olds get routinely married to 3-4 times older people. But, it's Stallman with his benign and - in the civilized world - quite obvious claims that is so wrong that he should never again take part in public discourse! I can't, for the life of me, understand what's so wrong with people helping each other to orgasm. What's so damaging to the psyche in engaging in consensual sexual acts. Yes, people who didn't yet reach physiological sexual maturity should be protected, and obviously using any kind of force to elicit consent should be punished. Other than that? It's just sex - one of the healthier ways of feeling good. There are cultures where sex has been treated as a normal activity for adolescents for literally tens of thousands of years, where it only became a problem after colonial rule started enforcing taboos and rules alien to the indigenous peoples. Well, it has nothing to do with this discussion, so I'll end the rant here. My main point is that the twisted view of all sexual activity of young people as "child abuse" is wrong, as is using advocacy for the opposite (ie. treating sex as normal activity; this comment included) to discredit people. Please, try to rethink your stance on the matter. Or alternatively, point me to a quote which actually is "in favour of child abuse". I feel silly writing this, but I think I have to: actual, real child abuse is also, of course, wrong.