5 ms·
I don't think this argument makes sense. In fact if we follow it to its conclusion, it's an additional reason for RMS to be removed from his job. 1. RMS is not
by neilk 6y ago
I don't think this argument makes sense. In fact if we follow it to its conclusion, it's an additional reason for RMS to be removed from his job.
1. RMS is not being punished by the FSF.
He does not have any right to a particular job, even as the founder of an organization. Many people, including FSF board members, believed he was not competent to serve the organization in a leadership role.
One could argue about whether getting excoriated on social media is a "non-judicial punishment". Perens seems to be decrying a rush to judgment, contrasting it with jury duty. But the most damning criticism is coming from people who worked with RMS closely, and who for years even shielded him from the consequences of his own actions. These people have thought long and hard about their experiences.
2. RMS is not obviously asking for any understanding nor promising to be better.
RMS has publicly described himself as having autistic characteristics. He seems to be saying he's sub-clinical. But, if he believes that this is the source of his difficulties, this is a private matter between him and his employer. So, our ability to judge here is limited.
However, at least from public statements, he does not seem to be invoking that defense, or asking for understanding. In fact, he doesn't seem to be even interested in any harms he has caused. Surely this would be step one?
Perens may well believe that RMS' problem is autism. But it matters what RMS believes and does. If he really has a disability but is denying it has any impact, this is even more of a reason to remove him.
3. Frankly this entire argument does such a disservice to the many men and women who live with autism/Asperger's Syndrome. A lot of them do struggle with norms. But they also feel bad when they inadvertently cause others pain. And most of them find a modus vivendi with others. This seems very unlike how RMS' interactions have been described, including to me by people who've worked with him, and what I've also personally seen at public events.
4. Personally it makes me very sad that we're having this argument. I don't take any pleasure in seeing RMS removed from a position of honor. I think he's one of the greatest thinkers of his time, and documents like "The Right to Read" ought to be in textbooks. There ought to be a place for RMS in our discourse. Just not this one.
- jordigh 6y ago> RMS has publicly described himself as autistic Oh, has he? Last I heard he actually rejected that. When did he openly call himself autistic?
- neilk 6y agoHe's called himself "borderline autistic" in at least one published profile in the Toronto Star, back in 2000. But you're right, he's also walked that back too. In 2008 he described himself as mostly normal with "a few of the characteristics" https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxymoron.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
- claxter 6y ago> 2. RMS is not obviously asking for any understanding nor promising to be better. You can't apologize once there is a mixture of 10% truth and 90% defamation. The libelous press will then print that the target has apologized for 100%, and therefore has validated the libel.
- neilk 6y agoThis is an interesting argument. So the existence of bad faith actors means that one should never address one's own harms?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI agree that the vast majority of complaints against him are unreasonable. But without some sort of apology or promise to do better, what are we supposed to tell those 10% with valid issues?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- torthrowaway998 6y ago>He does not have any right to a particular job No offense but I find this argument to be in bad faith. You would not say that for someone being fired due to being lgbt, would you? (whether it is legal or not is irrelevant here as this is about moral rights) He was not ostracized because they found him "not competent to serve the organization in a leadership role" but rather because they were outraged at his opinions (combined with a misrepresentation of his statements along with lies and half-truths -- the pleasure cards, the mit office label, etc). >Many people, including FSF board members, believed he was not competent to serve the organization in a leadership role. It would be great if these people too didn't try to misrepresent what he said. Such as in http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
- redis_mlc 6y agoAll 4 of your points imply that a person needs to defend themselves from online vigilantes like yourself, when the opposite is true. Your feelings and desire for comformity with the social norms of the day are your problem, not his. The US has a functioning court system - we don't need vigilantes like yourself, and there's no legal case here. In case you're not familiar with history, what you're suggesting is replaying the Communist Red Terror or Maoist purges, but 70 years later in the US. Shame on you.