11 ms·

> American freedom of speech This specifically is such a weird expression. Other than that, just because Stallman did a good thing once, doesn’t excuse him fr

> American freedom of speech This specifically is such a weird expression. Other than that, just because Stallman did a good thing once, doesn’t excuse him from other mistakes. And making mistakes is not itself a problem, you can always own up to them and learn. But what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour.

zecg 6y ago
> what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour. I disagree, it's all very much overblown.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
  I can't comment on most of the accusations, I have never met rms in person. But what really shocked me was that the authors of the anti rms letter label him as "transphobe", as a source for that claim they link to his GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [1], which to me spell the exact opposite. Why put such a claim in there? I find it really disturbing that so many people willingly accept that it's ok to mix legitimate criticism (assuming it is) with what is basically lies. "Might as well call him a few other bad names while we're at it for maximum impact"?. Why? [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html
  - bitwize 6y ago
    It's the bit about singular "they". RMS for some reason doesn't like singular "they", despite the fact that it predates singular "you" in common English usage. Singular "they" also happens to be, by far, the preferred pronoun of nonbinary people. By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people from participation in GNU projects.
    - orra 6y ago
      That policy has since been updated to allow singular they, despite Stallman's objection to singular they. But now the footnote of the policy would allow you to call a trans woman "they" and never "her". That's not something transphobes (or anybody else) would ever do to a cis woman.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        FWIW, I tried to get in the habit of using singular-“they” for everyone, even where I know their gender and they are cis, to reduce any subconscious gender bias. This has had two effects: learning that some trans people really don’t like that, and everyone assuming my partner is a dude. (He is, but I’m bi and therefore this is mere coincidence).
        orra 6y ago
        Interesting. I've taken to calling my partner "partner", to be gender neutral. But in the short term, people probably incorrectly infer I use the term because I am gay. Or, if they're presumptive but less presumptive, gay or bi.
      - buisi 6y ago
        Has he objected? If he is voicing his opinion on his blog, but the policy for GNU (which he runs) is otherwise progressive, then it feels like he is separating his personal opinions from how he operates a professional venue.
    - toyg 6y ago
      > By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people...? This sort of attitude is seriously disrespectful to people who are actually being harmed, offended, and physically chased away from real spaces.
      - DanBC 6y ago
        > Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people Chosing to reject someone's identity is persecuting them, yes. Luckily in England the courts agree and transphobes who refuse to use people's correct pronouns often lose their employment tribunal cases.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    It's the footnote. Call people by their pronouns, not some random one "per" you made up for them.
  - orra 6y ago
    The footnote of that policy allows you to persistently call a trans man "they", even if his preferred pronoun is he. That is, the policy endorses you misgendering. Calling a he/him person a "they" is a way of saying that you don't think they're a real man. It's really not much better than calling a trans man "her". Finally, the previous version of the said guidelines used to reject singular they. Singular they is a great way to refer to somebody whose pronouns you don't know. Moreover, it's the preferred pronoun for many non-binary people.
    - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
      Then what about the following part from the guidelines: > Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.
      - orra 6y ago
        The guideline argues "they" is gender neutral, so it does not conflict with anybody's gender identity. This misses the point. "they" is indeed gender neutral. But when we talk about specific individuals, we almost always use gendered pronouns. Hence, as I said, persistently using "they" for a binary trans person is a veiled insult. Again, it's like saying 'You're not a real man, but I am not allowed to call you she, so I will call you they'.
        jhugo 6y ago
        Knowing very little about this issue, this seems like a minefield. I have met many people whose native language doesn't have gendered pronouns, who make mistakes constantly when trying to use them in English and eventually learn to use "they" consistently to avoid getting it wrong. According to this standard, they would be being disrespectful whenever they meet someone with a strong preference about their pronoun, even if they had no knowledge of the preference.
        orra 6y ago
beaconstudios 6y ago
what did he actually do that you would consider "bad behaviour"? I know he's widely regarded as a blunt/offensive speaker, willing to speak his mind on topics most sensible people just keep quiet on, but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes? [edit] this is a genuine question. I've seen him write edgy things but am not aware of any harm he's done to others.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  “It’s only bad if there’s a law against it.” We used to be able to buy LSD on sugar cubes at record stores, because there was no specific law against it. Most folks just became really annoying for a few hours, but a number ended up in hospitals for the remainder of their lives. There’s a strong argument that all drugs should be legal, as it will allow natural selection to work, but tell that to the families of drug overdose victims; many of whom OD on their first go. As a former manager, and as someone that holds a fairly senior position in an organization that has very little to do with what we talk about here, I can tell you that words have consequences. They can be tremendously good, or tremendously bad. They can manifest into true criminal behavior, and that’s one reason why cult leaders and other instigators are prosecuted; even though they, themselves, didn’t get their hands dirty. Anyone remember Charlie Manson? Some of the worst criminals, during the Rwandan genocide, were radio DJs, who whipped people into a frenzy, and reported on the locations of Tutsi families. That said, I am also someone “on the spectrum,” as they say, nowadays, and have spent my entire life, being held to account for my blunt comments and lack of empathy. I learned to compensate, and am now in a position to do real damage, if I’m not careful about what I say. A bricklayer can spout off a bunch of nonsense with few ramifications, but the owner of the construction company needs to be careful what they say.
  - platonq 6y ago
    So words "have consequences", and you asscociate Stallman's gaffes with: - Dangers of LSD. - Words of actual cult leaders, who are universally charismatic and manipulative. Stallman is the exact opposite and has zero influence outside the free software topic. Stallman is incapable of being manipulative. - Mass murderers. - Charismatic DJs in the Rwandan genocide. I'm speechless that in this supposedly rational forum people employ the same dirty tactics as on Twitter.
tspiteri 6y ago
> did a good thing once Discounting something as "a good thing once" sounds weird to me: many things require a huge amount of work to carry off, so "once" here can encompass dedicating someone's life work for decades, just for that one thing. (Sorry for going off topic, as I'm not commenting either way on your point, just on this phrase.)
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  It’s completely flipped. Reality’s more like he did a bad thing once and now that’s supposed to invalidate all of the good he’s done.
- kosinus 6y ago
  I wouldn't say it's off topic. I've been thinking about this, because I do agree with you that I likely underestimate his contributions. I wasn't following the movement back then, and only know of his reputation. (I was probably too young.) But I also don't feel like this moves me at all, and I think that's because his past contributions aren't being erased here. What matters is the person he is now, how that doesn't fit this role they're assigning to him, and how it doesn't align with what the free software movement has become (pushing diversification).
bartread 6y ago
> Other than that, just because Stallman did a good thing once... Come on: this is a massive trivialisation of RMS's achievements. I have often disagreed with him but his contributions to OSS, and to the wider foundations of modern software and software development, are huge and are the product of decades of devotion - of consistent, motivated effort - from him. Like it or not, all of us who work in software - even those of us who aren't necessarily strong advocates of free software - benefit from RMS's work. I've also got bad news for you: we all exhibit _patterns_ of bad behaviour. Fortunately, we are all equipped with the capacity to change even long ingrained habits and patterns. (To be clear: I am in no way defending any bad behaviour from RMS towards other people, or suggesting that he shouldn't change that behaviour.)
- noirscape 6y ago
  What did he do in the past 15 years outside of starting petty feuds that nobody cares about (the Linux name debacle) and being a horrible public speaker (there's heaps of stories of him being a dickhead to convention organizers, other convention guests and in general not really keeping any check on what he's even getting hired for)? Like, I recognize that what he did back in the 80s matters, but somewhere around the turn of the millenium, he seems to have done very little of actual note and in the past 3 years or so seems to have become an active liability since the main things that got him attention were: - Using his rights as GNU lead to veto the removal of a bad, outdated, US-centric, abortion joke from the glibc manual. This is after all other project maintainers agreed to remove it. - Made appalling comments about the Epstein case (yes the media spun the story badly, that doesn't change that what Stallman said was horrible). Even outside of that, there's also literal years of the following: - Many examples of Stallman being a creep to women and an insensitive dickhead in general is something that existed before but really came to a head. - The FSF maintaining a very egocentric approach to FOSS (thinking it's the sole relevant authority on advancing thoughts and ideas behind FOSS, as well as getting very cranky when projects don't want to join the GNU), something which seems near universally pushed by Stallman since every case of this somehow ended up involving him. - Consistently vetoing plugin framework support for GCC out of an ideological fear that seems to consistently be cited as the main cause for it being superseded by clang/llvm. > Fortunately, we are all equipped with the capacity to change even long ingrained habits and patterns. It does come at the prerequisite that the person in question actually wants to change. Stallman is notoriously stubborn and it took him literally getting fired from the FSF to even admit that the most outstanding problem with his views (his stance on pedophilia) was wrong and he's never even bothered to address any of the others.
iagovar 6y ago
I'm not American and I 100% understand what he means.
FpUser 6y ago
>"...just because Stallman did a good thing once..." This is one glaring trivialization. RMS had "once" spent decades of hard work from which we all benefit greatly.
Roark66 6y ago
>But what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour. This is such bullshit. There is no pattern of bad behaviour. There are some opinions that are considered controversial by mere fact of containing his actual thoughts on sensitive subjects rather than phrases repeated verbatim from the "currently allowed viewpoints" book. His views are not even contrary, they are just phrased in a way that allows dialogue of the subject. This is enough for the pure evil villains like Sarah Mei to build up her online persona by misattribution, lying and fabricating information crafted in a way that directs a mindless mob to online-lynch the man that in his life has done more for the freedom of that mob's members than anyone else alive. It is despicable. If anything deserves to be "cancelled" it is Sarah Mei's opinions on the subject. The collective stupidity of the mob in question is completely beside the point as well as the actual content of Stallman's opinions which seem not to matter to anyone. This story really has one villain only and that person is not Richard Stallman.

zecg 6y ago

> what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour. I disagree, it's all very much overblown.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
I can't comment on most of the accusations, I have never met rms in person. But what really shocked me was that the authors of the anti rms letter label him as "transphobe", as a source for that claim they link to his GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [1], which to me spell the exact opposite. Why put such a claim in there? I find it really disturbing that so many people willingly accept that it's ok to mix legitimate criticism (assuming it is) with what is basically lies. "Might as well call him a few other bad names while we're at it for maximum impact"?. Why? [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html
- bitwize 6y ago
  It's the bit about singular "they". RMS for some reason doesn't like singular "they", despite the fact that it predates singular "you" in common English usage. Singular "they" also happens to be, by far, the preferred pronoun of nonbinary people. By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people from participation in GNU projects.
  - orra 6y ago
    That policy has since been updated to allow singular they, despite Stallman's objection to singular they. But now the footnote of the policy would allow you to call a trans woman "they" and never "her". That's not something transphobes (or anybody else) would ever do to a cis woman.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      FWIW, I tried to get in the habit of using singular-“they” for everyone, even where I know their gender and they are cis, to reduce any subconscious gender bias. This has had two effects: learning that some trans people really don’t like that, and everyone assuming my partner is a dude. (He is, but I’m bi and therefore this is mere coincidence).
      - orra 6y ago
        Interesting. I've taken to calling my partner "partner", to be gender neutral. But in the short term, people probably incorrectly infer I use the term because I am gay. Or, if they're presumptive but less presumptive, gay or bi.
    - buisi 6y ago
      Has he objected? If he is voicing his opinion on his blog, but the policy for GNU (which he runs) is otherwise progressive, then it feels like he is separating his personal opinions from how he operates a professional venue.
  - toyg 6y ago
    > By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people...? This sort of attitude is seriously disrespectful to people who are actually being harmed, offended, and physically chased away from real spaces.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      > Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people Chosing to reject someone's identity is persecuting them, yes. Luckily in England the courts agree and transphobes who refuse to use people's correct pronouns often lose their employment tribunal cases.
- pjc50 6y ago
  It's the footnote. Call people by their pronouns, not some random one "per" you made up for them.
- orra 6y ago
  The footnote of that policy allows you to persistently call a trans man "they", even if his preferred pronoun is he. That is, the policy endorses you misgendering. Calling a he/him person a "they" is a way of saying that you don't think they're a real man. It's really not much better than calling a trans man "her". Finally, the previous version of the said guidelines used to reject singular they. Singular they is a great way to refer to somebody whose pronouns you don't know. Moreover, it's the preferred pronoun for many non-binary people.
  - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
    Then what about the following part from the guidelines: > Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.
    - orra 6y ago
      The guideline argues "they" is gender neutral, so it does not conflict with anybody's gender identity. This misses the point. "they" is indeed gender neutral. But when we talk about specific individuals, we almost always use gendered pronouns. Hence, as I said, persistently using "they" for a binary trans person is a veiled insult. Again, it's like saying 'You're not a real man, but I am not allowed to call you she, so I will call you they'.
      - jhugo 6y ago
        Knowing very little about this issue, this seems like a minefield. I have met many people whose native language doesn't have gendered pronouns, who make mistakes constantly when trying to use them in English and eventually learn to use "they" consistently to avoid getting it wrong. According to this standard, they would be being disrespectful whenever they meet someone with a strong preference about their pronoun, even if they had no knowledge of the preference.
        orra 6y ago

beaconstudios 6y ago

what did he actually do that you would consider "bad behaviour"? I know he's widely regarded as a blunt/offensive speaker, willing to speak his mind on topics most sensible people just keep quiet on, but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes? [edit] this is a genuine question. I've seen him write edgy things but am not aware of any harm he's done to others.

ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
“It’s only bad if there’s a law against it.” We used to be able to buy LSD on sugar cubes at record stores, because there was no specific law against it. Most folks just became really annoying for a few hours, but a number ended up in hospitals for the remainder of their lives. There’s a strong argument that all drugs should be legal, as it will allow natural selection to work, but tell that to the families of drug overdose victims; many of whom OD on their first go. As a former manager, and as someone that holds a fairly senior position in an organization that has very little to do with what we talk about here, I can tell you that words have consequences. They can be tremendously good, or tremendously bad. They can manifest into true criminal behavior, and that’s one reason why cult leaders and other instigators are prosecuted; even though they, themselves, didn’t get their hands dirty. Anyone remember Charlie Manson? Some of the worst criminals, during the Rwandan genocide, were radio DJs, who whipped people into a frenzy, and reported on the locations of Tutsi families. That said, I am also someone “on the spectrum,” as they say, nowadays, and have spent my entire life, being held to account for my blunt comments and lack of empathy. I learned to compensate, and am now in a position to do real damage, if I’m not careful about what I say. A bricklayer can spout off a bunch of nonsense with few ramifications, but the owner of the construction company needs to be careful what they say.
- platonq 6y ago
  So words "have consequences", and you asscociate Stallman's gaffes with: - Dangers of LSD. - Words of actual cult leaders, who are universally charismatic and manipulative. Stallman is the exact opposite and has zero influence outside the free software topic. Stallman is incapable of being manipulative. - Mass murderers. - Charismatic DJs in the Rwandan genocide. I'm speechless that in this supposedly rational forum people employ the same dirty tactics as on Twitter.

tspiteri 6y ago

> did a good thing once Discounting something as "a good thing once" sounds weird to me: many things require a huge amount of work to carry off, so "once" here can encompass dedicating someone's life work for decades, just for that one thing. (Sorry for going off topic, as I'm not commenting either way on your point, just on this phrase.)

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
It’s completely flipped. Reality’s more like he did a bad thing once and now that’s supposed to invalidate all of the good he’s done.
kosinus 6y ago
I wouldn't say it's off topic. I've been thinking about this, because I do agree with you that I likely underestimate his contributions. I wasn't following the movement back then, and only know of his reputation. (I was probably too young.) But I also don't feel like this moves me at all, and I think that's because his past contributions aren't being erased here. What matters is the person he is now, how that doesn't fit this role they're assigning to him, and how it doesn't align with what the free software movement has become (pushing diversification).

bartread 6y ago

> Other than that, just because Stallman did a good thing once... Come on: this is a massive trivialisation of RMS's achievements. I have often disagreed with him but his contributions to OSS, and to the wider foundations of modern software and software development, are huge and are the product of decades of devotion - of consistent, motivated effort - from him. Like it or not, all of us who work in software - even those of us who aren't necessarily strong advocates of free software - benefit from RMS's work. I've also got bad news for you: we all exhibit _patterns_ of bad behaviour. Fortunately, we are all equipped with the capacity to change even long ingrained habits and patterns. (To be clear: I am in no way defending any bad behaviour from RMS towards other people, or suggesting that he shouldn't change that behaviour.)

noirscape 6y ago
What did he do in the past 15 years outside of starting petty feuds that nobody cares about (the Linux name debacle) and being a horrible public speaker (there's heaps of stories of him being a dickhead to convention organizers, other convention guests and in general not really keeping any check on what he's even getting hired for)? Like, I recognize that what he did back in the 80s matters, but somewhere around the turn of the millenium, he seems to have done very little of actual note and in the past 3 years or so seems to have become an active liability since the main things that got him attention were: - Using his rights as GNU lead to veto the removal of a bad, outdated, US-centric, abortion joke from the glibc manual. This is after all other project maintainers agreed to remove it. - Made appalling comments about the Epstein case (yes the media spun the story badly, that doesn't change that what Stallman said was horrible). Even outside of that, there's also literal years of the following: - Many examples of Stallman being a creep to women and an insensitive dickhead in general is something that existed before but really came to a head. - The FSF maintaining a very egocentric approach to FOSS (thinking it's the sole relevant authority on advancing thoughts and ideas behind FOSS, as well as getting very cranky when projects don't want to join the GNU), something which seems near universally pushed by Stallman since every case of this somehow ended up involving him. - Consistently vetoing plugin framework support for GCC out of an ideological fear that seems to consistently be cited as the main cause for it being superseded by clang/llvm. > Fortunately, we are all equipped with the capacity to change even long ingrained habits and patterns. It does come at the prerequisite that the person in question actually wants to change. Stallman is notoriously stubborn and it took him literally getting fired from the FSF to even admit that the most outstanding problem with his views (his stance on pedophilia) was wrong and he's never even bothered to address any of the others.

iagovar 6y ago

I'm not American and I 100% understand what he means.

FpUser 6y ago

>"...just because Stallman did a good thing once..." This is one glaring trivialization. RMS had "once" spent decades of hard work from which we all benefit greatly.

Roark66 6y ago

>But what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour. This is such bullshit. There is no pattern of bad behaviour. There are some opinions that are considered controversial by mere fact of containing his actual thoughts on sensitive subjects rather than phrases repeated verbatim from the "currently allowed viewpoints" book. His views are not even contrary, they are just phrased in a way that allows dialogue of the subject. This is enough for the pure evil villains like Sarah Mei to build up her online persona by misattribution, lying and fabricating information crafted in a way that directs a mindless mob to online-lynch the man that in his life has done more for the freedom of that mob's members than anyone else alive. It is despicable. If anything deserves to be "cancelled" it is Sarah Mei's opinions on the subject. The collective stupidity of the mob in question is completely beside the point as well as the actual content of Stallman's opinions which seem not to matter to anyone. This story really has one villain only and that person is not Richard Stallman.