8 ms·

I also stand up for Stallman

191 points by fogus 15y ago

3am 15y ago
It's not fair to tie all criticism of rms to bullying. This whole dust-up appears to have been started by a reaction to a post by kottke in which it's not at all clear to me that rms is even being mocked. I'm not denying rms gets unfairly criticized, or that bullying is bad (and the part about your son was poignant). But all criticism of rms is not bullying. In fact, since his position is so important, it would be wrong _not_ to hold him to a higher standard.
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  Kottke was trying to start a reasoned debate about parrot husbandry, was he? That's an awfully generous reading. Though I can believe that Kottke didn't mean to instigate a mob (it is so easy to do by accident), there's no sense in pretending the mob isn't there, now. I'm not about to fuel the fire by linking to multiple people, many with large audiences, who have been poking fun at RMS's personal habits while pretending – not very convincingly – that they're doing so out of principle, but such links aren't hard to find at the moment. And, yes, we can all tell the difference between disagreeing with (or even joking about) RMS's very strong and sometimes very offbeat technical, legal, and political ideas... and making fun of his socks. The first is fine – it is something he invites – but the second is just rude.
  - 3am 15y ago
    I didn't see an mean intent in it. Personally, I thought the parrot thing in the rider was noteworthy, amusing, and didn't reflect at all poorly on rms. To the contrary I found it personable and charming. I was still sore from his comments the day after Jobs passed, and this diffused the bad feelings a bit. I don't know who else is poking fun of him, or what they're saying. There is limited time in life and an inexhaustible supply of jerks on the internet.
  - nasmorn 15y ago
    Really I only see rms as your typucal celebrity here whos in his case entirely earned fame has risen to his head because he lives in a bubble were people read his rider and say: ok i go look for someone with a parrot. If I did it everyone would assume it is a joke. tl;dr stallman is softwares axel rose no more no less
  - msbarnett 15y ago
    > And, yes, we can all tell the difference between disagreeing with (or even joking about) RMS's very strong and sometimes very offbeat technical, legal, and political opinions and making fun of his socks. The first is fine – it is something he invites – but the second is just rude. Are we talking about the same Richard M Stallman who once wrote: > Could people please not use this list to announce information of no particular interest to the people on the list? Hundreds of thousands of babies are born every day. While the whole phenomenon is menacing, one of them by itself is not newsworthy. Nor is it a difficult achievement—even some fish can do it. (Now, if you were a seahorse, it would be more interesting, since it would be the male that gave birth.) > These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is something to be proud of, which fuels natalist pressure, which leads to pollution, extinction of wildlife, poverty, and ultimately mass starvation. in response to someone mentioning the birth of their child? If we're going to have an intellectually honest conversation about bullying in the tech community and the separation of personal attacks from technical matters, let's not attempt to do so under the delusion that RMS only invites comments on technical and political matters and never engages in extremely insulting social attacks on others. RMS is and always has been a controversial extremist who has been more than willing to engage in personal attacks in service to the causes that interest him.
    - RickHull 15y ago
      > RMS is and always has been ... more than willing to engage in personal attacks in service to the causes that interest him. Can you cite something? Your above quotations are not personal attacks. He is explaining (poorly) that the chosen venue was not correct for the content being communicated. He is speaking in terms of principles and not attacking the person's identity.
      - msbarnett 15y ago
        His first sentence is a (slightly testy) comment that the emacs mailing list wasn't the right forum for a birth announcement. This didn't require telling the guy that the birth of his child was menacing, insignificant because it was accomplished by a female instead of a male, and complicit in mass starvation and genocide. The "wrong forum" content was just an incidental cover for a long-form attack on that person because it happened to push Stallman's buttons, and Stallman was in a position of power on the list from which he could conveniently abuse the poster without fear of repercussion. It's bullying every bit as much as the attacks on Stallman.
- phillmv 15y ago
  The part that bothers me is that I once went and saw an rms talk and within five minutes one thing was overwhelmingly clear to me. The dude clearly suffers from some kind of high functioning autism. Aspergers, whatever, it's just clear he doesn't think about social interactions the same way most other people do. Which given the kind of audience of nerds and geeks that he is front of I would expect to be a little bit more understanding or patient but – I guess in the end we're all just moneys jockeying for social status. Frankly, once I realized the above almost all of the rms mocking comes off as being extremely mean spirited.
  - hype7 15y ago
    I don't know. Not to come off as mean spirited, but when someone puts themselves in the public spotlight, sends out requests to speak, then sends a list of demands in addition to... I'm all in favor of principled people. But if nothing else, the public ribbing should actually HELP his cause - he is turning people off by virtue of what he's saying and doing. If he actually listens, he might find himself a little bit more persuasive about his principles
    - phillmv 15y ago
      If anything that rider clearly and loudly signals "I am eccentric and have a faulty amount of social awareness, please be advised". So, it seems to do the job it's meant for :P.
jiggy2011 15y ago
If people were following stallman arounnd when he was trying to do his shopping or whatever and jeering at him or threatening him or making malicious comments about his weight or his beard or something then that would be bullying him. He makes public comment as the leader of a large software organisation, many people strongly disagree with his statements and post their reasons for this on technology related forums. I don't really see an issue with 99% of what is posted here on HN, juvenile or downright nasty comments usually get downvoted pretty hard.
- raganwald 15y ago
  > many people strongly disagree with his statements and post their reasons for this on technology related forums I’m 100% ok with this. In my essay a few years ago about optimism (there’s a link in the post), I suggest we we try hard to praise people and criticize behaviours. That’s where I try to go. I think it’s perfectly ok to criticize words and choices. I try to avoid criticizing people. It may seem like a meaningless distinction, but to me there’s a world of difference between: So-and-so is a dick, and: So-and-so wrote some dickish words.
dualboot 15y ago
I'd really hate to live in a world where everyone was bland, unoriginal, or even-worse so completely dishonest that they pretend that there is nothing that makes them the least bit unique.
hugh3 15y ago
Isn't this submission a little redundant?
- tokenadult 15y ago
  I think raganwald offers a different perspective from Dave Winer, and I think both posts are important for our community.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    I think raganwald's perspective is fine and dandy, as a comment on the original article, which is how he originally left it.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I have no objection to flagging it. I wanted to write it, but I don’t think it’s particularly important for anybody to read it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
diminish 15y ago
the future needs free software, open source software and the incredibly innovative licenses stallman pioneered to create. http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also-stand-up-for-stallman http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also-stan...
- rimantas 15y ago
  There was free software befor rms, there are other licenses which are more free than his. I know many will not agree with my opinion that rms and his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant, but they are. Mind you, free and open sofware is not irrelevant, quite the opposite. But rms view of the tech world is.
  - gillianseed 15y ago
    If GPL ceases to be used (which seems extremely unlikely since it's the most popular software licence) then perhaps you could state that his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant. I do not share Stallman's view regarding proprietary software (although I can see where he comes from given the printer-driver which inspired him to craft GPL) but I certainly see the value of a licence which enforces source code availability of distributed derivates, both practically and ideologically, just as I see the value of licences such as BSD/MIT. As for his predictions regarding the 'tech-world' they have unfortunately been very accurate with software patents posing as the biggest threath to both open/closed source development just as he predicted back in 1996 (if not earlier). Add to this the increased widespread use of computer 'gadgets' and their locked-down functionality. As such I think his views of the tech world is more relevant than ever, despite not fully agreeing with it.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Yeah, I have to agree with gill on this one. I do see Stallman's views as largely obsolete and irrelevant but the GPL does have its merit. There are times you want to give some code away but don't want it used in a proprietary way. But Stallman's insistence on the GPL for everything is just wrong. There are times when I want to give code away and don't care if it's used for profit or not or whether someone will use it to derive some proprietary software from it. I use the Apache license 99% of the time. Open source but free to take it and exploit it for money if you want too. I don't mind.
kevinalexbrown 15y ago
Someone with Stallman's level of clout is not the victim of bullying. He has been very well recognized for his work, including a MacArthur "Genius" grant. He's a big enough deal that he can have really specific requirements in his rider and can walk away from speaking engagements when the organizers don't meet them. This is getting a little paternalistic. Stallman is not a child, and speaking of others' bullying him strikes me as somewhat diminutive, particularly when the example Raganwald compared Stallman to was his son.
- tokenadult 15y ago
  Stallman is not a child True enough. But behavior fitting only for overgrown children is still a bad idea, even if Stallman can take the heat. I agree with raganwald here that if we can say "I am a human being" we ought to have some basis for treating all of our fellow human beings humanely.
  - nknight 15y ago
    RMS's repeated failure to demonstrate any humanity has an awful lot to do with the dislike people are feeling towards him.
    - gillianseed 15y ago
      I seriously doubt that, it seems ad hominem attacks are used because his detractors in general don't feel they have enough to argument with and/or that their arguments hold little weight. He, being an 'odd bird' from a social aspect makes him an easy target for these kinds of attacks. Has Steve Jobs displayed more 'humanity' than Stallman? Has Steve Ballmer? Linus Torvalds, Mark Zuckerberg?
      - billpatrianakos 15y ago
        , Ballmer, Jobs, and Zuckerberg, and even Torvalds aren't on the font lines of advancing an agenda. And they also didn't write posts about being glad a competitor was dead the day after that death (don't even try to say Stallman didn't say he was glad, see my comment above a little ways on why that argument is total bunk). Those guys aren't looking for controversy like Stallman. They do their job, get things done, and don't whine constantly like RMS. The others you mention certainly do get their fair share of ad nominee attacks and they don't even set themselves up for it like Stallman. RMS has an appropriate last name as he really is stalling the progress of the FSF.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
billjings 15y ago
I can't say I agree with this "stand up for weak people against bullies" defense of Richard Stallman. It doesn't do rms any favors, because it makes him look like a weakling. I don't agree with rms right now, but he deserves a lot of respect for the work he has done throughout his life. I'm just going by the wikipedia page, but he wrote gcc and gdb - that alone should give someone a fair amount of respect. If you add the concept of copyleft and the GPL on top of that, you've got a substantial legacy that we owe a debt of gratitude towards. He is an extremist, though. He has always been an extremist. His opinions were often unappealing even when he was writing in opposition to The Borg. His opinions have only become more unpalatable as closed platforms from Apple and Google have become more appealing on their technical merits. In my own experience, though, it seems like some newer folks don't really understand that those extreme ideas came from an important place. They don't understand the hacker ethic or have much of an idea of the culture that rms comes from, exemplified, and fights for. I imagine most readers here are familiar with it, but it's a fading ideal, for sure. Anyway - I've made fun of rms as much as the next guy, but he doesn't need me to defend him. And I doubt he cares what people say about his rider.
- pnathan 15y ago
  Let us be reasonable and deal with thoughts (where appropriate) rather than the personal habits of someone (unless he is trying to push personal habits). More than a few of the ideas Stallman has pushed have come into wide acceptance, and some number of the things he's warned about have come to pass (or made a good stab at it). So his ideas have had a demonstrated merit, which - in my mind - makes them worthy of thoughtful consideration. Let us not parrot mindless bashings or equally mindless fanboyism.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  > He is an extremist, though. […] I have discovered lately that it is very easy to have "extreme" opinions. Such opinions only have to be irrevocably incompatible with what we think is mainstream. For instance, if I say that private banks should stop creating money and give that power back to the people (or at least to the states who represent them), I can easily have reactions like "Banks don't create money." (that's false, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap for a taste of the actual shenanigans), "Printing money is BAAD (hyperinflation and all)" (yes, for the rich), "But that would destroy the whole system!" (how sad, but that was kind of the point. Plus, I think a peaceful transition is totally possible.) Back to Stalman's ideas. I think they're seen as "extreme" because they happen to be incompatible to the way we do things right now. But, come to think of it, why any single piece of software should not be free? Why any single piece of knowledge or culture should not be open to access? Those are not scarce to begin with. Excluding any one from any abundant resource whatsoever is simply ludicrous. Yet, proprietary software is ubiquitous, and given how the world currently runs, it would be difficult to do away with it. So we have no choice: for all software to be free, we have to fix a thing or two in our Lovely Global Economy. Which would be extreme.
mattmaroon 15y ago
One sad thing about arguments is that dismissing them with ad hominems is incredibly effective. You can see this in the media all the time. "The Tea Party is just a bunch of racist, homophobic astroturf." "The OWS movement is just a bunch of anarchist hippies who aren't willing to get a job like the rest of us." Etc. These ad hominem dismissals are, logically speaking, irrelevant, but they sway people, often more than the actual merits of the the arguments. As a result, it is often frustrating when someone who is on the same side as you, and very visible, makes themselves such a lightning rod for them. I currently feel this exact way about OWS. It's a mixture of "I'm glad people care about fixing our broken financial system" and "oh no, they're going to make moderate America associate financial industry reform lazy hippies." Stallman is a tireless promoter of his ideology, and if you subscribe to the same then you would have to have mixed feelings about him because of this. His "weirdness" does some amount of harm to the cause because in the end it's always the moderates (who are most easily swayed by irrelevant things like parrots) who decide the issue. This is, of course, no reason to be uncivil to him, but it at least partially explains (though in no way justifies) the sort of behavior you see even from many who are predisposed to agree with many of his ideas.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
SNK 15y ago
Perhaps calling Jobs a corrupt, malign evil slaver the day after his death might also be construed as rude by some. "Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died. As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone.” Nobody deserves to have to die – not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs’ malign influence on people’s computing."
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  By many, actually. But this is ridiculous anyway. If they read his post, they would have seen the rudeness just isn't there, at least when you assume (and this is not unreasonable), that the lock-in in Apple latests devices is plainly unacceptable: (1) Stallman got his facts right. (Jobs is pioneer of the walled garden that people actually buy.) (2) Making people accept such a lock-in can reasonably be called "malign influence" in my opinion. (3) Stallman quite clearly stated that Jobs didn't deserve to die. (4) The timing was probably appropriate too, as Jobs death creates a surge of interest for Apple's locked-down devices. It wouldn't do for the Free Software cause if Steve Jobs became a martyr for Proprietary Software.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    No. I call weak sauce on that one. It's like you're trying not read the hate and pretending there is no subtext there. A computer didn't write Stallman's post on Jobs. Stallman did. He's a human and everything we say, do, and write has a subtext. Sometimes that subtext isn't very obvious but you can tell by someone's written words how they feel not by the words themselves but how they're strung together and how they fit into the larger thought behind the writing. All 4 of your points are factually accurate (number 4 can be debated but I'll give it to you now for the sake of argument) but they miss the glaring, obvious, in-your-face subtext of that post which was: "I Richard Stallman, am going to use the death of a high profile enemy of mine to purposely stir up controversy and get attention, despicably, by calling him evil, but not directly, then adding in this Herals Washing quote so I can have plausible deniability that my supporters will use to defend me". The worst thing about what he said is that he purposely infused that post with words and a quote that he could use as plausible deniability. You know, Id be mad but would definitely not think of Stallman as a coward (which that post makes him) if he were to just come right out and say what he meant which was so obviously: "I'm glad Jobs is dead because that means the company might flounder under new leadership and fail, making my movement seem attractive. Oh, and I do hate Jobs, always have, think he guy is evil along with his product line". Anyone denying that his post on Jobs was not full of vitriol or schadenfreude is one of the following: * an RMS fanboy * someone who didn't read the post * a contrarian * blind (physically or otherwise) * lacks human emotion, intuition, and the like That post was seriously just completely damning for RMS. we'd expect that out of some random Internet jerk but somehow because it's Stallman and because he laced it in his cloak of plausible deniability its become a debate. There should be no debate. The guy said he was glad Jobs was dead without having the balls to come out and say he was glad Jobs was dead.
albedoa 15y ago
raganwald, if I were to spit on you and shove you into a locker, people would be expecting me to apologize to you, not follow up my bullying by attempting to justify my behavior. Anything less than an apology would be deserving of scorn. The analogy you've drawn between Stallmam and your kid does not validate. rms isn't being bullied; he is the one doing the bullying. The public reaction is appropriate and rational. There is no excuse for Stallman's behavior, and if you disagree that it's deserving of backlash, well then we'll just have to disagree. That said, it hurts my heart as well to hear about your son being picked on. I hate the thought so much. Your kid isn't the bully. He's the victim. I hope you've explained to him, and I hope he realizes, the difference between him and those who push him around.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Thank you for your very kind words. They touch me.
Udo 15y ago
I think a more nuanced view is in order. As with many things, this is an example where agreement or personal likability is probably not a Boolean thing for most people. Personally, I don't care what he looks like and I hate it when disparaging anecdotes are being passed around. It doesn't matter that he's a stereotypical "weird kid" as Dave Winer describes him. We're all hackers here and before the days of the Brogrammer, most of us were (and still are) weird kids. What does matter is the message Stallman conveys in his talks. It's an important one, and he brings it across very eloquently. He himself is, however, an extremist and people do well to always keep this in mind. He is still influential because he is an extremist with a lot of legitimate grievances. When he is giving talks he sounds reasonable, because the fundamentals of his ideas are reasonable. That doesn't mean he is a reasonable person. In many interactions he does in fact appear to be the bully, not the victim. In the end, RMS is so fanatical about his vision of Free Software that he as a person becomes remarkably non-free. That's a tremendous price to pay and I respect that. So there is no need to come down for or against RMS. He is what he is - he does his thing irregardless of the world around him. I believe it's not always productive to try and pass a final judgement on people or ideas, to try and weigh the good vs the bad and arrive at a net value. It is not necessary to stand up for or against Stallman. Sometimes, it's OK to let the pros and cons stand for themselves and acknowledge them as such without giving in to the urge to make a weighted sum of the whole thing.
kscaldef 15y ago
This is an aside to the main point, but I get the impression that raganwald doesn't quite understand the "it gets better" movement (I'm not sure if that's quite the right word to use for it, but I'm failing to come up with a better term). "It gets better" wasn't started to try to claim that the situation for LBGT teenagers was improving (although that's true), because that message doesn't really help the individual teen. The message was: as you, individually, get older, it will get better. And, more specifically, please don't kill yourself because your life is difficult right now. A similar idea appears in some of PG's essays where he points out that high school is pretty unpleasant for nerds, but most of that disappears later in life. It gets better because the community of adults is structurally different than the community of children.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Yeah, I do understand that it gets better when you get out of HS. Paul Graham made a similar point about being a nerd, I don’t recall which essay it was from. Here’s an interesting video, Rick Mercer calling on people in the limelight to stand up and be counted. I am not endorsing his views, just suggesting it’s an interesting perspective to think about: http://youtu.be/Wh1jNAZHKIw http://youtu.be/Wh1jNAZHKIw And his words from 2007: http://youtu.be/t1Y7qpiu2RQ http://youtu.be/t1Y7qpiu2RQ
billpatrianakos 15y ago
You've got to be kidding me! No one is bullying Stallman and even if they were, standing up against Stallman-bullying != anything close to the LGBT movement, women's right, and definitely not slavery. I say it often and I must say it again here as it definitely applies: Really? C'mon. Reaalllyy?? Just c'mon! I'm going to write a blog post about how no one can say mean things about the president anymore (any president from now on) and equate strongly disagreeing with prominent public figures and saying any mean thing about them is as bad as slavery and gay bashing. Does that sound reasonable? Nah. Didn't think so. Stallman is a public figure and like it or not, people say mean things about them publicly. It goes with the territory. People like that have to deal with it and I really doubt they lose sleep over nasty comments on Internet message boards and blog comments. You know, I was always a huge Steve Jobs fan. Maybe even a fanboy. I've seen all sorts of crazy comments about him all over the web but I never once thought the guy needed me or anyone else to stand up for him nor do I think he paid any mind at all to what us little people said about him. I admit I'm a bit biased. I don't like Stallman. I'm on board with parts of what he stands for but generally don't like his attitude and the way he conducts himself publicly. That said, if Stallman wants people to stop bullying him then he should get out of the public eye. I know he's no Paris Hilton when it comes to media attention but amongst circles like ours here on HN he qualifies as a public figure. This post is preposterous to me and I can't believe it's a top story. Oh, and please don't down vote me because that's bullying and losing all my karma on HN would hurt my feelings! (Actually, I would get a little tiny bit upset but I, apparently unlike Stallman am prepared to face the consequences of voicing my opinion in a public forum).
alttag 15y ago
Maybe it's because I just spent three hours watching re-runs of "The West Wing". Maybe it's because I used to be an elected official, and had to deal with more than a few crackpots and nut-jobs with paranoid tendencies. What every it was, the line "My ideas deserve to be heard ..." made me wonder to what extent that's true. I don't wish to deny anyone the right to hold their ideas, or to speak them (even stupid ones). But the right to speak is not the same as a right to be heard. I saw this as the foundation of the argument. I agree that some honor is due someone who adopts a principled stand and lives by a moral code of conduct, even if I may disagree with the morals or their consequences. But that does not mean they have a right to be heard. The mere existence of an idea does not grant the right to be debated. Pragmatically, ideas are shared by those who have attention. And the act of obtaining attention reflects—whether it should or not—on the idea itself. That's what the hubbub is about, not whether someone should be allowed to speak.
- swah 15y ago
  I had the same thought when reading about "deserve to be heard": does not scale. But the author probably means that if you are going to pay attention to ("waste time with") that person, its their ideas that you should be caring.
biot 15y ago
A bit offtopic, but: > coïncidence While I get that the diaeresis signifies that the first part of the word isn't one syllable like "coin" but two syllables like "co-in", it seems a little archaic to write it that way. Should one also write "beïng" or "goïng", lest someone pronounce these as one syllable words?
doki_pen 15y ago
Isn't it documented that people in the pecking order constantly have to assert their position or risk losing it, while people at the top do their best to give the appearance of not caring about the pecking order? We should do our best to use our intelligence but bullying is very natural and has its roots in evaluation. It is the job of the top of the pecking order to police it.

191 points by fogus 15y ago

3am 15y ago

It's not fair to tie all criticism of rms to bullying. This whole dust-up appears to have been started by a reaction to a post by kottke in which it's not at all clear to me that rms is even being mocked. I'm not denying rms gets unfairly criticized, or that bullying is bad (and the part about your son was poignant). But all criticism of rms is not bullying. In fact, since his position is so important, it would be wrong _not_ to hold him to a higher standard.

mechanical_fish 15y ago
Kottke was trying to start a reasoned debate about parrot husbandry, was he? That's an awfully generous reading. Though I can believe that Kottke didn't mean to instigate a mob (it is so easy to do by accident), there's no sense in pretending the mob isn't there, now. I'm not about to fuel the fire by linking to multiple people, many with large audiences, who have been poking fun at RMS's personal habits while pretending – not very convincingly – that they're doing so out of principle, but such links aren't hard to find at the moment. And, yes, we can all tell the difference between disagreeing with (or even joking about) RMS's very strong and sometimes very offbeat technical, legal, and political ideas... and making fun of his socks. The first is fine – it is something he invites – but the second is just rude.
- 3am 15y ago
  I didn't see an mean intent in it. Personally, I thought the parrot thing in the rider was noteworthy, amusing, and didn't reflect at all poorly on rms. To the contrary I found it personable and charming. I was still sore from his comments the day after Jobs passed, and this diffused the bad feelings a bit. I don't know who else is poking fun of him, or what they're saying. There is limited time in life and an inexhaustible supply of jerks on the internet.
- nasmorn 15y ago
  Really I only see rms as your typucal celebrity here whos in his case entirely earned fame has risen to his head because he lives in a bubble were people read his rider and say: ok i go look for someone with a parrot. If I did it everyone would assume it is a joke. tl;dr stallman is softwares axel rose no more no less
- msbarnett 15y ago
  > And, yes, we can all tell the difference between disagreeing with (or even joking about) RMS's very strong and sometimes very offbeat technical, legal, and political opinions and making fun of his socks. The first is fine – it is something he invites – but the second is just rude. Are we talking about the same Richard M Stallman who once wrote: > Could people please not use this list to announce information of no particular interest to the people on the list? Hundreds of thousands of babies are born every day. While the whole phenomenon is menacing, one of them by itself is not newsworthy. Nor is it a difficult achievement—even some fish can do it. (Now, if you were a seahorse, it would be more interesting, since it would be the male that gave birth.) > These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is something to be proud of, which fuels natalist pressure, which leads to pollution, extinction of wildlife, poverty, and ultimately mass starvation. in response to someone mentioning the birth of their child? If we're going to have an intellectually honest conversation about bullying in the tech community and the separation of personal attacks from technical matters, let's not attempt to do so under the delusion that RMS only invites comments on technical and political matters and never engages in extremely insulting social attacks on others. RMS is and always has been a controversial extremist who has been more than willing to engage in personal attacks in service to the causes that interest him.
  - RickHull 15y ago
    > RMS is and always has been ... more than willing to engage in personal attacks in service to the causes that interest him. Can you cite something? Your above quotations are not personal attacks. He is explaining (poorly) that the chosen venue was not correct for the content being communicated. He is speaking in terms of principles and not attacking the person's identity.
    - msbarnett 15y ago
      His first sentence is a (slightly testy) comment that the emacs mailing list wasn't the right forum for a birth announcement. This didn't require telling the guy that the birth of his child was menacing, insignificant because it was accomplished by a female instead of a male, and complicit in mass starvation and genocide. The "wrong forum" content was just an incidental cover for a long-form attack on that person because it happened to push Stallman's buttons, and Stallman was in a position of power on the list from which he could conveniently abuse the poster without fear of repercussion. It's bullying every bit as much as the attacks on Stallman.
phillmv 15y ago
The part that bothers me is that I once went and saw an rms talk and within five minutes one thing was overwhelmingly clear to me. The dude clearly suffers from some kind of high functioning autism. Aspergers, whatever, it's just clear he doesn't think about social interactions the same way most other people do. Which given the kind of audience of nerds and geeks that he is front of I would expect to be a little bit more understanding or patient but – I guess in the end we're all just moneys jockeying for social status. Frankly, once I realized the above almost all of the rms mocking comes off as being extremely mean spirited.
- hype7 15y ago
  I don't know. Not to come off as mean spirited, but when someone puts themselves in the public spotlight, sends out requests to speak, then sends a list of demands in addition to... I'm all in favor of principled people. But if nothing else, the public ribbing should actually HELP his cause - he is turning people off by virtue of what he's saying and doing. If he actually listens, he might find himself a little bit more persuasive about his principles
  - phillmv 15y ago
    If anything that rider clearly and loudly signals "I am eccentric and have a faulty amount of social awareness, please be advised". So, it seems to do the job it's meant for :P.

jiggy2011 15y ago

If people were following stallman arounnd when he was trying to do his shopping or whatever and jeering at him or threatening him or making malicious comments about his weight or his beard or something then that would be bullying him. He makes public comment as the leader of a large software organisation, many people strongly disagree with his statements and post their reasons for this on technology related forums. I don't really see an issue with 99% of what is posted here on HN, juvenile or downright nasty comments usually get downvoted pretty hard.

raganwald 15y ago
> many people strongly disagree with his statements and post their reasons for this on technology related forums I’m 100% ok with this. In my essay a few years ago about optimism (there’s a link in the post), I suggest we we try hard to praise people and criticize behaviours. That’s where I try to go. I think it’s perfectly ok to criticize words and choices. I try to avoid criticizing people. It may seem like a meaningless distinction, but to me there’s a world of difference between: So-and-so is a dick, and: So-and-so wrote some dickish words.

dualboot 15y ago

I'd really hate to live in a world where everyone was bland, unoriginal, or even-worse so completely dishonest that they pretend that there is nothing that makes them the least bit unique.

hugh3 15y ago

Isn't this submission a little redundant?

tokenadult 15y ago
I think raganwald offers a different perspective from Dave Winer, and I think both posts are important for our community.
- hugh3 15y ago
  I think raganwald's perspective is fine and dandy, as a comment on the original article, which is how he originally left it.
raganwald 15y ago
I have no objection to flagging it. I wanted to write it, but I don’t think it’s particularly important for anybody to read it.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

diminish 15y ago

the future needs free software, open source software and the incredibly innovative licenses stallman pioneered to create. http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also-stand-up-for-stallman http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also-stan...

rimantas 15y ago
There was free software befor rms, there are other licenses which are more free than his. I know many will not agree with my opinion that rms and his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant, but they are. Mind you, free and open sofware is not irrelevant, quite the opposite. But rms view of the tech world is.
- gillianseed 15y ago
  If GPL ceases to be used (which seems extremely unlikely since it's the most popular software licence) then perhaps you could state that his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant. I do not share Stallman's view regarding proprietary software (although I can see where he comes from given the printer-driver which inspired him to craft GPL) but I certainly see the value of a licence which enforces source code availability of distributed derivates, both practically and ideologically, just as I see the value of licences such as BSD/MIT. As for his predictions regarding the 'tech-world' they have unfortunately been very accurate with software patents posing as the biggest threath to both open/closed source development just as he predicted back in 1996 (if not earlier). Add to this the increased widespread use of computer 'gadgets' and their locked-down functionality. As such I think his views of the tech world is more relevant than ever, despite not fully agreeing with it.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Yeah, I have to agree with gill on this one. I do see Stallman's views as largely obsolete and irrelevant but the GPL does have its merit. There are times you want to give some code away but don't want it used in a proprietary way. But Stallman's insistence on the GPL for everything is just wrong. There are times when I want to give code away and don't care if it's used for profit or not or whether someone will use it to derive some proprietary software from it. I use the Apache license 99% of the time. Open source but free to take it and exploit it for money if you want too. I don't mind.

kevinalexbrown 15y ago

Someone with Stallman's level of clout is not the victim of bullying. He has been very well recognized for his work, including a MacArthur "Genius" grant. He's a big enough deal that he can have really specific requirements in his rider and can walk away from speaking engagements when the organizers don't meet them. This is getting a little paternalistic. Stallman is not a child, and speaking of others' bullying him strikes me as somewhat diminutive, particularly when the example Raganwald compared Stallman to was his son.

tokenadult 15y ago
Stallman is not a child True enough. But behavior fitting only for overgrown children is still a bad idea, even if Stallman can take the heat. I agree with raganwald here that if we can say "I am a human being" we ought to have some basis for treating all of our fellow human beings humanely.
- nknight 15y ago
  RMS's repeated failure to demonstrate any humanity has an awful lot to do with the dislike people are feeling towards him.
  - gillianseed 15y ago
    I seriously doubt that, it seems ad hominem attacks are used because his detractors in general don't feel they have enough to argument with and/or that their arguments hold little weight. He, being an 'odd bird' from a social aspect makes him an easy target for these kinds of attacks. Has Steve Jobs displayed more 'humanity' than Stallman? Has Steve Ballmer? Linus Torvalds, Mark Zuckerberg?
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      , Ballmer, Jobs, and Zuckerberg, and even Torvalds aren't on the font lines of advancing an agenda. And they also didn't write posts about being glad a competitor was dead the day after that death (don't even try to say Stallman didn't say he was glad, see my comment above a little ways on why that argument is total bunk). Those guys aren't looking for controversy like Stallman. They do their job, get things done, and don't whine constantly like RMS. The others you mention certainly do get their fair share of ad nominee attacks and they don't even set themselves up for it like Stallman. RMS has an appropriate last name as he really is stalling the progress of the FSF.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

billjings 15y ago

I can't say I agree with this "stand up for weak people against bullies" defense of Richard Stallman. It doesn't do rms any favors, because it makes him look like a weakling. I don't agree with rms right now, but he deserves a lot of respect for the work he has done throughout his life. I'm just going by the wikipedia page, but he wrote gcc and gdb - that alone should give someone a fair amount of respect. If you add the concept of copyleft and the GPL on top of that, you've got a substantial legacy that we owe a debt of gratitude towards. He is an extremist, though. He has always been an extremist. His opinions were often unappealing even when he was writing in opposition to The Borg. His opinions have only become more unpalatable as closed platforms from Apple and Google have become more appealing on their technical merits. In my own experience, though, it seems like some newer folks don't really understand that those extreme ideas came from an important place. They don't understand the hacker ethic or have much of an idea of the culture that rms comes from, exemplified, and fights for. I imagine most readers here are familiar with it, but it's a fading ideal, for sure. Anyway - I've made fun of rms as much as the next guy, but he doesn't need me to defend him. And I doubt he cares what people say about his rider.

pnathan 15y ago
Let us be reasonable and deal with thoughts (where appropriate) rather than the personal habits of someone (unless he is trying to push personal habits). More than a few of the ideas Stallman has pushed have come into wide acceptance, and some number of the things he's warned about have come to pass (or made a good stab at it). So his ideas have had a demonstrated merit, which - in my mind - makes them worthy of thoughtful consideration. Let us not parrot mindless bashings or equally mindless fanboyism.
loup-vaillant 15y ago
> He is an extremist, though. […] I have discovered lately that it is very easy to have "extreme" opinions. Such opinions only have to be irrevocably incompatible with what we think is mainstream. For instance, if I say that private banks should stop creating money and give that power back to the people (or at least to the states who represent them), I can easily have reactions like "Banks don't create money." (that's false, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap for a taste of the actual shenanigans), "Printing money is BAAD (hyperinflation and all)" (yes, for the rich), "But that would destroy the whole system!" (how sad, but that was kind of the point. Plus, I think a peaceful transition is totally possible.) Back to Stalman's ideas. I think they're seen as "extreme" because they happen to be incompatible to the way we do things right now. But, come to think of it, why any single piece of software should not be free? Why any single piece of knowledge or culture should not be open to access? Those are not scarce to begin with. Excluding any one from any abundant resource whatsoever is simply ludicrous. Yet, proprietary software is ubiquitous, and given how the world currently runs, it would be difficult to do away with it. So we have no choice: for all software to be free, we have to fix a thing or two in our Lovely Global Economy. Which would be extreme.

mattmaroon 15y ago

One sad thing about arguments is that dismissing them with ad hominems is incredibly effective. You can see this in the media all the time. "The Tea Party is just a bunch of racist, homophobic astroturf." "The OWS movement is just a bunch of anarchist hippies who aren't willing to get a job like the rest of us." Etc. These ad hominem dismissals are, logically speaking, irrelevant, but they sway people, often more than the actual merits of the the arguments. As a result, it is often frustrating when someone who is on the same side as you, and very visible, makes themselves such a lightning rod for them. I currently feel this exact way about OWS. It's a mixture of "I'm glad people care about fixing our broken financial system" and "oh no, they're going to make moderate America associate financial industry reform lazy hippies." Stallman is a tireless promoter of his ideology, and if you subscribe to the same then you would have to have mixed feelings about him because of this. His "weirdness" does some amount of harm to the cause because in the end it's always the moderates (who are most easily swayed by irrelevant things like parrots) who decide the issue. This is, of course, no reason to be uncivil to him, but it at least partially explains (though in no way justifies) the sort of behavior you see even from many who are predisposed to agree with many of his ideas.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

SNK 15y ago

Perhaps calling Jobs a corrupt, malign evil slaver the day after his death might also be construed as rude by some. "Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died. As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone.” Nobody deserves to have to die – not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs’ malign influence on people’s computing."

loup-vaillant 15y ago
By many, actually. But this is ridiculous anyway. If they read his post, they would have seen the rudeness just isn't there, at least when you assume (and this is not unreasonable), that the lock-in in Apple latests devices is plainly unacceptable: (1) Stallman got his facts right. (Jobs is pioneer of the walled garden that people actually buy.) (2) Making people accept such a lock-in can reasonably be called "malign influence" in my opinion. (3) Stallman quite clearly stated that Jobs didn't deserve to die. (4) The timing was probably appropriate too, as Jobs death creates a surge of interest for Apple's locked-down devices. It wouldn't do for the Free Software cause if Steve Jobs became a martyr for Proprietary Software.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  No. I call weak sauce on that one. It's like you're trying not read the hate and pretending there is no subtext there. A computer didn't write Stallman's post on Jobs. Stallman did. He's a human and everything we say, do, and write has a subtext. Sometimes that subtext isn't very obvious but you can tell by someone's written words how they feel not by the words themselves but how they're strung together and how they fit into the larger thought behind the writing. All 4 of your points are factually accurate (number 4 can be debated but I'll give it to you now for the sake of argument) but they miss the glaring, obvious, in-your-face subtext of that post which was: "I Richard Stallman, am going to use the death of a high profile enemy of mine to purposely stir up controversy and get attention, despicably, by calling him evil, but not directly, then adding in this Herals Washing quote so I can have plausible deniability that my supporters will use to defend me". The worst thing about what he said is that he purposely infused that post with words and a quote that he could use as plausible deniability. You know, Id be mad but would definitely not think of Stallman as a coward (which that post makes him) if he were to just come right out and say what he meant which was so obviously: "I'm glad Jobs is dead because that means the company might flounder under new leadership and fail, making my movement seem attractive. Oh, and I do hate Jobs, always have, think he guy is evil along with his product line". Anyone denying that his post on Jobs was not full of vitriol or schadenfreude is one of the following: * an RMS fanboy * someone who didn't read the post * a contrarian * blind (physically or otherwise) * lacks human emotion, intuition, and the like That post was seriously just completely damning for RMS. we'd expect that out of some random Internet jerk but somehow because it's Stallman and because he laced it in his cloak of plausible deniability its become a debate. There should be no debate. The guy said he was glad Jobs was dead without having the balls to come out and say he was glad Jobs was dead.

albedoa 15y ago

raganwald, if I were to spit on you and shove you into a locker, people would be expecting me to apologize to you, not follow up my bullying by attempting to justify my behavior. Anything less than an apology would be deserving of scorn. The analogy you've drawn between Stallmam and your kid does not validate. rms isn't being bullied; he is the one doing the bullying. The public reaction is appropriate and rational. There is no excuse for Stallman's behavior, and if you disagree that it's deserving of backlash, well then we'll just have to disagree. That said, it hurts my heart as well to hear about your son being picked on. I hate the thought so much. Your kid isn't the bully. He's the victim. I hope you've explained to him, and I hope he realizes, the difference between him and those who push him around.

raganwald 15y ago
Thank you for your very kind words. They touch me.

Udo 15y ago

I think a more nuanced view is in order. As with many things, this is an example where agreement or personal likability is probably not a Boolean thing for most people. Personally, I don't care what he looks like and I hate it when disparaging anecdotes are being passed around. It doesn't matter that he's a stereotypical "weird kid" as Dave Winer describes him. We're all hackers here and before the days of the Brogrammer, most of us were (and still are) weird kids. What does matter is the message Stallman conveys in his talks. It's an important one, and he brings it across very eloquently. He himself is, however, an extremist and people do well to always keep this in mind. He is still influential because he is an extremist with a lot of legitimate grievances. When he is giving talks he sounds reasonable, because the fundamentals of his ideas are reasonable. That doesn't mean he is a reasonable person. In many interactions he does in fact appear to be the bully, not the victim. In the end, RMS is so fanatical about his vision of Free Software that he as a person becomes remarkably non-free. That's a tremendous price to pay and I respect that. So there is no need to come down for or against RMS. He is what he is - he does his thing irregardless of the world around him. I believe it's not always productive to try and pass a final judgement on people or ideas, to try and weigh the good vs the bad and arrive at a net value. It is not necessary to stand up for or against Stallman. Sometimes, it's OK to let the pros and cons stand for themselves and acknowledge them as such without giving in to the urge to make a weighted sum of the whole thing.

kscaldef 15y ago

This is an aside to the main point, but I get the impression that raganwald doesn't quite understand the "it gets better" movement (I'm not sure if that's quite the right word to use for it, but I'm failing to come up with a better term). "It gets better" wasn't started to try to claim that the situation for LBGT teenagers was improving (although that's true), because that message doesn't really help the individual teen. The message was: as you, individually, get older, it will get better. And, more specifically, please don't kill yourself because your life is difficult right now. A similar idea appears in some of PG's essays where he points out that high school is pretty unpleasant for nerds, but most of that disappears later in life. It gets better because the community of adults is structurally different than the community of children.

raganwald 15y ago
Yeah, I do understand that it gets better when you get out of HS. Paul Graham made a similar point about being a nerd, I don’t recall which essay it was from. Here’s an interesting video, Rick Mercer calling on people in the limelight to stand up and be counted. I am not endorsing his views, just suggesting it’s an interesting perspective to think about: http://youtu.be/Wh1jNAZHKIw http://youtu.be/Wh1jNAZHKIw And his words from 2007: http://youtu.be/t1Y7qpiu2RQ http://youtu.be/t1Y7qpiu2RQ

billpatrianakos 15y ago

You've got to be kidding me! No one is bullying Stallman and even if they were, standing up against Stallman-bullying != anything close to the LGBT movement, women's right, and definitely not slavery. I say it often and I must say it again here as it definitely applies: Really? C'mon. Reaalllyy?? Just c'mon! I'm going to write a blog post about how no one can say mean things about the president anymore (any president from now on) and equate strongly disagreeing with prominent public figures and saying any mean thing about them is as bad as slavery and gay bashing. Does that sound reasonable? Nah. Didn't think so. Stallman is a public figure and like it or not, people say mean things about them publicly. It goes with the territory. People like that have to deal with it and I really doubt they lose sleep over nasty comments on Internet message boards and blog comments. You know, I was always a huge Steve Jobs fan. Maybe even a fanboy. I've seen all sorts of crazy comments about him all over the web but I never once thought the guy needed me or anyone else to stand up for him nor do I think he paid any mind at all to what us little people said about him. I admit I'm a bit biased. I don't like Stallman. I'm on board with parts of what he stands for but generally don't like his attitude and the way he conducts himself publicly. That said, if Stallman wants people to stop bullying him then he should get out of the public eye. I know he's no Paris Hilton when it comes to media attention but amongst circles like ours here on HN he qualifies as a public figure. This post is preposterous to me and I can't believe it's a top story. Oh, and please don't down vote me because that's bullying and losing all my karma on HN would hurt my feelings! (Actually, I would get a little tiny bit upset but I, apparently unlike Stallman am prepared to face the consequences of voicing my opinion in a public forum).

alttag 15y ago

Maybe it's because I just spent three hours watching re-runs of "The West Wing". Maybe it's because I used to be an elected official, and had to deal with more than a few crackpots and nut-jobs with paranoid tendencies. What every it was, the line "My ideas deserve to be heard ..." made me wonder to what extent that's true. I don't wish to deny anyone the right to hold their ideas, or to speak them (even stupid ones). But the right to speak is not the same as a right to be heard. I saw this as the foundation of the argument. I agree that some honor is due someone who adopts a principled stand and lives by a moral code of conduct, even if I may disagree with the morals or their consequences. But that does not mean they have a right to be heard. The mere existence of an idea does not grant the right to be debated. Pragmatically, ideas are shared by those who have attention. And the act of obtaining attention reflects—whether it should or not—on the idea itself. That's what the hubbub is about, not whether someone should be allowed to speak.

swah 15y ago
I had the same thought when reading about "deserve to be heard": does not scale. But the author probably means that if you are going to pay attention to ("waste time with") that person, its their ideas that you should be caring.

biot 15y ago

A bit offtopic, but: > coïncidence While I get that the diaeresis signifies that the first part of the word isn't one syllable like "coin" but two syllables like "co-in", it seems a little archaic to write it that way. Should one also write "beïng" or "goïng", lest someone pronounce these as one syllable words?

doki_pen 15y ago

Isn't it documented that people in the pecking order constantly have to assert their position or risk losing it, while people at the top do their best to give the appearance of not caring about the pecking order? We should do our best to use our intelligence but bullying is very natural and has its roots in evaluation. It is the job of the top of the pecking order to police it.