3 ms·

This is preposterous. Removing a serially abusive person from a position of power is in no way soviet style authoritarianism, and has absolutely nothing to do w

This is preposterous. Removing a serially abusive person from a position of power is in no way soviet style authoritarianism, and has absolutely nothing to do with communism or capitalism. This is a private organization removing someone for poor behavior according to their own bylaws. It is not somehow a symbol for the fall of liberal capitalism in the US. Please. People are removed from boards and committees for poor behavior all the time. The sky does not fall.

roenxi 6y ago
The accusations that Stallman is a 'serial abuser' are strictly innuendo at this point. The flow of his detractors is one of wilful misinterpretation and unreasonableness. Removing Stallman isn't an economic decision, true enough. But it is the same hubris of believing that someone's political trappings and status should determine their influence on technical matters. The Free Software community can survive without Stallman. But it is extremely worrying if the Free Software community feels Stallman is so at odds with their mission that they want to cast him out. Stallman has flaws, but his commitment to that cause is really beyond question. It is appropriate to give him a voice in deciding how these projects are run. He is a reliable lighthouse for working out what is and isn't free about software.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  Have you actually talked with anyone at MIT CS, particularly women? It's in no way innuendo to claim Stallman is a serial harasser towards women and behaves in an angry and abusive manner towards anyone he deems inferior, which is most people. Stallman and Free Software have been explicitly political from the start. Stallman hasn't made any technical contribution in decades, and honestly, hasn't been relevant coding wise since the late 90s. He was put on the GCC committee as a political symbol, not a technical leader. That symbol is now toxic to GCC's mission due to Stallman's volitional behavior.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
    > and behaves in an angry and abusive manner towards anyone he deems inferior, which is most people. This statements is simply not true. I had several exchanges and communications with Stallman, private and official. It was clear to him that I am less knowledgeable than him and less competent in the areas we discussed. But he never showed any of the traits you mention, the opposite was true. He was very patient and explained things to me without patronizing. I also observed his behavior towards others, it was similar (even though I found his hygiene habits highly objectionable).
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      That he treated you nicely, does not mean he does this universally. For him the contempt is less about intelligence or competence and more about his extremely rigid world view. When he's surrounded by his admirers of course he doesn't do it. But when someone turns down his lascivious advances or offends one of his random moral positions he behaves entirely differently. But I mean, you can just go read the guys blog for content that would clearly bar him from ever holding a position of influence within most corporate businesses. No one wants an evangelist/spokesperson that is blogging about how "voluntary" pedophilia should not be a crime. No one is canceling Stallman unfairly. What's getting canceled is a free pass he never should have been granted in the first place about this behavior.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        > That he treated you nicely, does not mean he does this universally. Of course not. It would make no sense to negate the experiences of other people, I was just objecting to the sentence "...behaves in an angry and abusive manner towards anyone he deems inferior" as it uses an absolute quantifier.

roenxi 6y ago

The accusations that Stallman is a 'serial abuser' are strictly innuendo at this point. The flow of his detractors is one of wilful misinterpretation and unreasonableness. Removing Stallman isn't an economic decision, true enough. But it is the same hubris of believing that someone's political trappings and status should determine their influence on technical matters. The Free Software community can survive without Stallman. But it is extremely worrying if the Free Software community feels Stallman is so at odds with their mission that they want to cast him out. Stallman has flaws, but his commitment to that cause is really beyond question. It is appropriate to give him a voice in deciding how these projects are run. He is a reliable lighthouse for working out what is and isn't free about software.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Have you actually talked with anyone at MIT CS, particularly women? It's in no way innuendo to claim Stallman is a serial harasser towards women and behaves in an angry and abusive manner towards anyone he deems inferior, which is most people. Stallman and Free Software have been explicitly political from the start. Stallman hasn't made any technical contribution in decades, and honestly, hasn't been relevant coding wise since the late 90s. He was put on the GCC committee as a political symbol, not a technical leader. That symbol is now toxic to GCC's mission due to Stallman's volitional behavior.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  > and behaves in an angry and abusive manner towards anyone he deems inferior, which is most people. This statements is simply not true. I had several exchanges and communications with Stallman, private and official. It was clear to him that I am less knowledgeable than him and less competent in the areas we discussed. But he never showed any of the traits you mention, the opposite was true. He was very patient and explained things to me without patronizing. I also observed his behavior towards others, it was similar (even though I found his hygiene habits highly objectionable).
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    That he treated you nicely, does not mean he does this universally. For him the contempt is less about intelligence or competence and more about his extremely rigid world view. When he's surrounded by his admirers of course he doesn't do it. But when someone turns down his lascivious advances or offends one of his random moral positions he behaves entirely differently. But I mean, you can just go read the guys blog for content that would clearly bar him from ever holding a position of influence within most corporate businesses. No one wants an evangelist/spokesperson that is blogging about how "voluntary" pedophilia should not be a crime. No one is canceling Stallman unfairly. What's getting canceled is a free pass he never should have been granted in the first place about this behavior.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
      > That he treated you nicely, does not mean he does this universally. Of course not. It would make no sense to negate the experiences of other people, I was just objecting to the sentence "...behaves in an angry and abusive manner towards anyone he deems inferior" as it uses an absolute quantifier.