4 ms·

TIL all the following is "low hanging fruit": Claiming that he had never worked with women on projects; a woman was a co-author to a book he wrote about GCC, a

TIL all the following is "low hanging fruit": Claiming that he had never worked with women on projects; a woman was a co-author to a book he wrote about GCC, and GCC had a number of women code contributors, and one had maintained the test suite for 6 years at the time he made the comment. Comments legitimizing/defending sex with underage people especially when he tends to make it a hill to die on or only backs down in an extremely petulant manner (ie 'sorry you were offended by my comments') A long history of defending child pornography. Likening people with downs syndrome to "pets" and asserting that they should not be born. Ditto for being such a prolific serial sexual harasser that women newly hired into his building at MIT were advised to stock their offices with a number of houseplants, as they're apparently a sort of "RMS Kryptonite". Ditto for keeping a mattress (no sheets) in his office and routinely having half-naked piles of people on it. Ditto for multiple incidents of telling women substantially younger than him that he'd kill himself if they didn't date or have sex with him. Ditto for passing out extremely creepy "pleasure cards" to women. Ditto for repeatedly using virginity jokes in his talks, in one case singling out a 15 year old girl in the audience, repeatedly. (See defense of child sex above)

horsawlarway 4y ago
This is an ad-hominem logic fallacy. He can be the creepiest fucker around and still be dead right about this specific subject. Trying to point the discussion at his morals is literally a failing on your part in terms of this discussion - you're not adding anything of value to the discussion. If you want to have this discussion (and it's fine if you do) - go do it when the topic is sexual abuse, or women's rights, or progressive policy. I probably agree with you on all the above in that discussion - but this discussion isn't that discussion. This discussion is Huawei abusing the little green man in the phones that their customers "own" to serve the needs of China's government. A topic where I think Stallman happens to have a history of being correct.
- mort96 4y ago
  What? The question was "In what ways is he crazy", and your parent comment is a perfectly ok response to that question. At no point has anyone said, "he is crazy/has said or done these bad things and therefore he is wrong about this subject".
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    I agree, but sadly, we inevitably end up with folks who are here to point fingers and call for heads when his name comes up. And while I think there's a very valid criticism of him as a person in that context, I find that context tends to drown out the actual conversation if you're not particularly careful to avoid it. I think the basic "how is he crazy" question was fine, and I happily answered it within the context of the discussion (he doesn't compromise easily. I see it as the same flaw in Bernie Sanders, with mostly the same results - lack of effective action because working with others always requires compromise. Basically - he's difficult to work with to his own detriment.). But I think the pointed focus on his sexual behavior is pretty off-topic. Further - I think it's clear that most of the folks making those comments aren't here to talk about his opinion on software - they're here to delegitimize him because they have a personal grievance (real or perceived) with him outside the context of the discussion. There's certainly space for that discussion - but go start a new thread for it. ---- so... long story short. "he is crazy" is both true in the context of this discussion, and an attempt to immunize the conversation from the irrelevant aspects of his social life. Although given the thread afterwards... I'd say the result was bad reaction to the vaccine. But who knows - it may have been even worse without it...
concordDance 4y ago
Some unsubstantiated rumors and some normative statements (how are you so sure its wrong to defend child pornography?)...

horsawlarway 4y ago

This is an ad-hominem logic fallacy. He can be the creepiest fucker around and still be dead right about this specific subject. Trying to point the discussion at his morals is literally a failing on your part in terms of this discussion - you're not adding anything of value to the discussion. If you want to have this discussion (and it's fine if you do) - go do it when the topic is sexual abuse, or women's rights, or progressive policy. I probably agree with you on all the above in that discussion - but this discussion isn't that discussion. This discussion is Huawei abusing the little green man in the phones that their customers "own" to serve the needs of China's government. A topic where I think Stallman happens to have a history of being correct.

mort96 4y ago
What? The question was "In what ways is he crazy", and your parent comment is a perfectly ok response to that question. At no point has anyone said, "he is crazy/has said or done these bad things and therefore he is wrong about this subject".
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  I agree, but sadly, we inevitably end up with folks who are here to point fingers and call for heads when his name comes up. And while I think there's a very valid criticism of him as a person in that context, I find that context tends to drown out the actual conversation if you're not particularly careful to avoid it. I think the basic "how is he crazy" question was fine, and I happily answered it within the context of the discussion (he doesn't compromise easily. I see it as the same flaw in Bernie Sanders, with mostly the same results - lack of effective action because working with others always requires compromise. Basically - he's difficult to work with to his own detriment.). But I think the pointed focus on his sexual behavior is pretty off-topic. Further - I think it's clear that most of the folks making those comments aren't here to talk about his opinion on software - they're here to delegitimize him because they have a personal grievance (real or perceived) with him outside the context of the discussion. There's certainly space for that discussion - but go start a new thread for it. ---- so... long story short. "he is crazy" is both true in the context of this discussion, and an attempt to immunize the conversation from the irrelevant aspects of his social life. Although given the thread afterwards... I'd say the result was bad reaction to the vaccine. But who knows - it may have been even worse without it...

concordDance 4y ago

Some unsubstantiated rumors and some normative statements (how are you so sure its wrong to defend child pornography?)...