4 ms·

Anyone care to summarize what lead up to this?

cedilla 3y ago
Very short version: Deceased CS pioneer gets linked to Epstein rape island. Stallman correctly points out that the deceased is unable to defend himself and makes a nuanced argument about the details of the case and the lack of evidence that the deceased had sex with anyone on the island. Stallman then gets obliterated by a public incensed about the Epstein case. A public that is unwilling to discuss the fine nuances between pedophilia and hebephilia and sees such takes as nothing more than bunny ears lawyering. To add on, several women report Stallman being somewhat creepy towards them. It's an absolute PR disaster. Nothing that Stallman said about Minsky was incorrect. Stallman was 100% in the right. He was misunderstood. But, in my opinion, that was entirely on him. Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  > Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood. He was reported as saying a girl was "willing". What he said was "probably presented as willing" - i.e. Minsky was likely unaware she was coerced. When it takes four words to give enough context, but journalists repeat only one, that goes beyond reckless disregard for the truth, and into malice. It was not impossible to be misunderstood. It was impossible for smear merchants to resist. Don't let the Gell-Mann amnesia make you forget this when you read another hit job that has had context surgically removed, or even the offending words themselves, and we are simply to trust the writer that something was e.g. "hateful".
  - cedilla 3y ago
    This is one of stallman's blunders. This was impossible to be not misunderstood. Posts aren't read carefully and completely. That's just a fact of life, no surgical removal necessary. when people read about "willing" in context of trafficked rape victims, they ask themselves what the fuck the point of mentioning that is. Is it okay to rape a teenager if they represent willing? Of course that is not at all what Stallman was implying, and if he was just some dude I would have been very sympathetic. But he was the president of a lobby organisation. He can't go around being completely unaware that it's not only about what you say, but also how you say it and what words you use. He can't believe in a world where everyone else will calmly and carefully engage with the whole of his argument. Also, for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept - especially when the topic is as sensitive as this. Stallman was, again, 100% in the right but the way he made is argument could only lead to this outcome.
    - SenAnder 3y ago
      > for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept But the smear merchants couldn't take the risk. I agree, Stallman shouldn't have been commenting on it - as the face of free software, he needs to think carefully about appearances, regardless of being technically correct. Where we disagree is in presenting journalists repeating the smears as merely confused. They can write 1000+ word articles about the statement, but can't spend more than one word quoting the statement itself?
    - t-3 3y ago
      Willfully misrepresenting someone and accidentally misreading them are not at all the same. The campaign against Stallman was obviously not one angry person who didn't read his words closely and ended up arguing against something he never said. It was a coordinated smear campaign to remove people who believe in free software from public view.
- edfletcher_t137 3y ago
  [flagged]
orwin 3y ago
He was misunderstood, at the wrong time (this is linked to Epstein's case). Acted like I would expect my autist friend to act (except Stallman doesn't have the same speech impediment most Asperger as deep on the spectrum have, which doesn't help in this case) to defend himself. It didn't work, people dug up an uniformed take on pedophilia from 20 years ago to make his more recent take seems worst than it is, and people found out he acted flirty/creepy in the workplace (which I mean, yeah, nowadays it's creepy to try to flirt in the workplace, and it should be worse if you're socially awkward). To be honest, I think most people do not care about his Epstein and pedophilia comments, but the 'creepy in the workplace' hit home for a lot of people in the FOSS community (it did for me), so he's 'soft canceled' for it. I wouldn't mind him as a speaker, IC, advisor... I do mind him as a director/boss/manager /executive.
- lifeline82 3y ago
  The main benefice is eclipsing legitimate voice advocating open source since many years in a very radical way and often at cost for private companies which are open source washing their predatory business practices. So basically all old whites males figures who spent years developing GNU and linux and many library for no benefits and for just empowering all mankind, are just pushed away, in the worst depictables ways so that capitalistic predation can extend everywhere. Open sources, Linux, run everythings in industry worldwide. Capitalist cannot let the governance of thoses projects in the hand of aging white anarchist males. Therefor the capitalist predators use their puppet "woke" asset to silence and clean all open source movement from their enemies. This started with code of conduct, pushed by transgender who are the most perverse form of misoginy. TLDR: it's all about money and power.

Very short version: Deceased CS pioneer gets linked to Epstein rape island. Stallman correctly points out that the deceased is unable to defend himself and makes a nuanced argument about the details of the case and the lack of evidence that the deceased had sex with anyone on the island. Stallman then gets obliterated by a public incensed about the Epstein case. A public that is unwilling to discuss the fine nuances between pedophilia and hebephilia and sees such takes as nothing more than bunny ears lawyering. To add on, several women report Stallman being somewhat creepy towards them. It's an absolute PR disaster. Nothing that Stallman said about Minsky was incorrect. Stallman was 100% in the right. He was misunderstood. But, in my opinion, that was entirely on him. Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood.

SenAnder 3y ago
> Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood. He was reported as saying a girl was "willing". What he said was "probably presented as willing" - i.e. Minsky was likely unaware she was coerced. When it takes four words to give enough context, but journalists repeat only one, that goes beyond reckless disregard for the truth, and into malice. It was not impossible to be misunderstood. It was impossible for smear merchants to resist. Don't let the Gell-Mann amnesia make you forget this when you read another hit job that has had context surgically removed, or even the offending words themselves, and we are simply to trust the writer that something was e.g. "hateful".
- cedilla 3y ago
  This is one of stallman's blunders. This was impossible to be not misunderstood. Posts aren't read carefully and completely. That's just a fact of life, no surgical removal necessary. when people read about "willing" in context of trafficked rape victims, they ask themselves what the fuck the point of mentioning that is. Is it okay to rape a teenager if they represent willing? Of course that is not at all what Stallman was implying, and if he was just some dude I would have been very sympathetic. But he was the president of a lobby organisation. He can't go around being completely unaware that it's not only about what you say, but also how you say it and what words you use. He can't believe in a world where everyone else will calmly and carefully engage with the whole of his argument. Also, for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept - especially when the topic is as sensitive as this. Stallman was, again, 100% in the right but the way he made is argument could only lead to this outcome.
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    > for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept But the smear merchants couldn't take the risk. I agree, Stallman shouldn't have been commenting on it - as the face of free software, he needs to think carefully about appearances, regardless of being technically correct. Where we disagree is in presenting journalists repeating the smears as merely confused. They can write 1000+ word articles about the statement, but can't spend more than one word quoting the statement itself?
  - t-3 3y ago
    Willfully misrepresenting someone and accidentally misreading them are not at all the same. The campaign against Stallman was obviously not one angry person who didn't read his words closely and ended up arguing against something he never said. It was a coordinated smear campaign to remove people who believe in free software from public view.
edfletcher_t137 3y ago
[flagged]

orwin 3y ago

He was misunderstood, at the wrong time (this is linked to Epstein's case). Acted like I would expect my autist friend to act (except Stallman doesn't have the same speech impediment most Asperger as deep on the spectrum have, which doesn't help in this case) to defend himself. It didn't work, people dug up an uniformed take on pedophilia from 20 years ago to make his more recent take seems worst than it is, and people found out he acted flirty/creepy in the workplace (which I mean, yeah, nowadays it's creepy to try to flirt in the workplace, and it should be worse if you're socially awkward). To be honest, I think most people do not care about his Epstein and pedophilia comments, but the 'creepy in the workplace' hit home for a lot of people in the FOSS community (it did for me), so he's 'soft canceled' for it. I wouldn't mind him as a speaker, IC, advisor... I do mind him as a director/boss/manager /executive.

lifeline82 3y ago
The main benefice is eclipsing legitimate voice advocating open source since many years in a very radical way and often at cost for private companies which are open source washing their predatory business practices. So basically all old whites males figures who spent years developing GNU and linux and many library for no benefits and for just empowering all mankind, are just pushed away, in the worst depictables ways so that capitalistic predation can extend everywhere. Open sources, Linux, run everythings in industry worldwide. Capitalist cannot let the governance of thoses projects in the hand of aging white anarchist males. Therefor the capitalist predators use their puppet "woke" asset to silence and clean all open source movement from their enemies. This started with code of conduct, pushed by transgender who are the most perverse form of misoginy. TLDR: it's all about money and power.