4 ms·

I think there are two different things: - the MIT mailing list discussion of a few years ago where he got a lot of flakes for what I indeed believe was a lot o

by jraph 3y ago

I think there are two different things: - the MIT mailing list discussion of a few years ago where he got a lot of flakes for what I indeed believe was a lot of misunderstanding. He seemed reasonable to me, but you really need subtle and careful reading to notice this. It was easy to misread and understand the contrary of was he thinks. I think he should have refrained from participating in this discussion though. While I don't know if it was intentionally driven by opponents, I do think he was defamed a lot, regardless one's opinion on this story. - his inappropriate behavior with women, who mostly had to (find tricks to) avoid him, from was I read there and there. I don't think he is misogynistic (many examples on stallman.org supports the opposite) but I believe there's no excuse for this inappropriate behavior if true. He should have shown more respect and learned to avoid making people and women in particular uncomfortable. He is incredibly clever, I can't imagine he would be unable to learn what patterns to avoid, he should have bothered more. I know it's difficult in particular for some autistic people (which he might be) to take hints, but I also know some who became incredibly good at it after learning (better than non-autistic people even, precisely because it was a conscious process - not saying it's easy; it is exhausting for some people). And it does not require being able to take subtle hints to avoid obvious sexist behavior. I was thinking of this and the many times he was mean to someone when I mentioned "unacceptable" in my first comment.

op00to 3y ago
When I hear stuff like "you need really subtle and careful reading"... it's just an excuse to discount the actual content of the message and invent the meaning you wanted all along. Like, how could I be so stupid to not pick up on this totally opposite point from what RMS was saying?
- jraph 3y ago
  This point was discussed at length over the years. You have your opinion on it. Likely different from mine. At this point I don't think any of us can change their mind, we both have been forming our respective opinion for a long time now. Let me precise my phrasing: you might have read this thing with "really subtle and careful reading" and reached a different opinion from mine. I believe it. It's fine. But I do maintain that, in any case, you need really subtle and careful reading to avoid jumping to widely wrong conclusions. I think it was easy to understand horrible things from his wording by skipping a word or two or thinking too fast. The thing with Stallman in particular is that he is particularly very careful with his wording, and I think this whole MIT discussion was no counterexample to this. It's up to us to understand the right thing and it is clear that strongly different interpretations emerged this time, for some reason. And what's worse is that his clarifications might have strengthened both interpretations. Anyway, that's why I said "Regardless on one's opinion" on the matter. It's easy to find inappropriate comments on RMS that defame him.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    That's a long way to say "I gave every statement the maximum benefit of doubt". A lot of people need to learn that culturally engrained bad behaviors aren't the same as intentionally being a bad person. But neither does it free you from responsibility for your behavior.
    - jraph 3y ago
      > That's a long way to say "I gave every statement the maximum benefit of doubt". I don't agree. I questioned his statements quite hard. Because I already knew at the time that he was not well-behaved with women. Now, be aware that I almost fully agree with the rest of this comment and your other comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699851#37702338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699851#37702338. [*] What one thinks / what one's ideals are is different from how one actually behaves. Especially when speaking about sexism. Apart from obviously bad behavior, there are many things we do that are sexist without even us noticing and it's important to be aware of this so it can be fixed. [*] With a difference: I understand a "misogynist" as someone who actively dislike women. See [1]. Sexism ≠ misogyny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Is your stance that subtlety doesn't exist, or just not for stallman?
pelagicAustral 3y ago
> He is very clever, I can't imagine he would be unable to learn what patterns to avoid I've worked with some very clever people in the past, and many of them are indeed no longer around (in the industry) because of their flabbergasting capacity to not pick up on 'patterns' that would save them from social assassination.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  That's just autism
  - jraph 3y ago
    But autistic people are not doomed. They can learn to avoid problematic behavior. Pretty well. As well as the rest of the population can learn about the difficulties autistic people can encounter in a mostly non-autistic setting and be more understanding / show some empathy. It's a long way though.
    - Gigachad 3y ago
      Probably in the case of Stallman, he grew up in an era before better understanding of the condition and how to deal with it properly. I'd also assume from his general attitude that he wouldn't take too well to being told how to behave.
_cenw 3y ago
> I don't think he is misogynistic (many examples on stallman.org supports the opposite) Intent, outcome and self-image can drift apart quite substantially. Few misogynists would consider themselves as such. Usually because misogynist behavior is still considered normal by quite a few people and pushback against the status quo comes at a social cost.
- jraph 3y ago
  Fully agree, except for sexism ≠ misogyny See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699851#37702498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699851#37702498

by jraph 3y ago

op00to 3y ago

When I hear stuff like "you need really subtle and careful reading"... it's just an excuse to discount the actual content of the message and invent the meaning you wanted all along. Like, how could I be so stupid to not pick up on this totally opposite point from what RMS was saying?

jraph 3y ago
This point was discussed at length over the years. You have your opinion on it. Likely different from mine. At this point I don't think any of us can change their mind, we both have been forming our respective opinion for a long time now. Let me precise my phrasing: you might have read this thing with "really subtle and careful reading" and reached a different opinion from mine. I believe it. It's fine. But I do maintain that, in any case, you need really subtle and careful reading to avoid jumping to widely wrong conclusions. I think it was easy to understand horrible things from his wording by skipping a word or two or thinking too fast. The thing with Stallman in particular is that he is particularly very careful with his wording, and I think this whole MIT discussion was no counterexample to this. It's up to us to understand the right thing and it is clear that strongly different interpretations emerged this time, for some reason. And what's worse is that his clarifications might have strengthened both interpretations. Anyway, that's why I said "Regardless on one's opinion" on the matter. It's easy to find inappropriate comments on RMS that defame him.
- _cenw 3y ago
  That's a long way to say "I gave every statement the maximum benefit of doubt". A lot of people need to learn that culturally engrained bad behaviors aren't the same as intentionally being a bad person. But neither does it free you from responsibility for your behavior.
  - jraph 3y ago
    > That's a long way to say "I gave every statement the maximum benefit of doubt". I don't agree. I questioned his statements quite hard. Because I already knew at the time that he was not well-behaved with women. Now, be aware that I almost fully agree with the rest of this comment and your other comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699851#37702338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699851#37702338. [*] What one thinks / what one's ideals are is different from how one actually behaves. Especially when speaking about sexism. Apart from obviously bad behavior, there are many things we do that are sexist without even us noticing and it's important to be aware of this so it can be fixed. [*] With a difference: I understand a "misogynist" as someone who actively dislike women. See [1]. Sexism ≠ misogyny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
Is your stance that subtlety doesn't exist, or just not for stallman?

pelagicAustral 3y ago

> He is very clever, I can't imagine he would be unable to learn what patterns to avoid I've worked with some very clever people in the past, and many of them are indeed no longer around (in the industry) because of their flabbergasting capacity to not pick up on 'patterns' that would save them from social assassination.

Gigachad 3y ago
That's just autism
- jraph 3y ago
  But autistic people are not doomed. They can learn to avoid problematic behavior. Pretty well. As well as the rest of the population can learn about the difficulties autistic people can encounter in a mostly non-autistic setting and be more understanding / show some empathy. It's a long way though.
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    Probably in the case of Stallman, he grew up in an era before better understanding of the condition and how to deal with it properly. I'd also assume from his general attitude that he wouldn't take too well to being told how to behave.

_cenw 3y ago

> I don't think he is misogynistic (many examples on stallman.org supports the opposite) Intent, outcome and self-image can drift apart quite substantially. Few misogynists would consider themselves as such. Usually because misogynist behavior is still considered normal by quite a few people and pushback against the status quo comes at a social cost.

jraph 3y ago
Fully agree, except for sexism ≠ misogyny See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699851#37702498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37699851#37702498