I think Stallman is tactless, and I've thought that for years. That email didn't change anything I thought about him.

I also think that being tactless is not a moral crime. It's aesthetically offensive and counterproductive from a leadership perspective, but being a bad leader doesn't make somebody a bad person.

It's always hard when people who built things you love have flaws. I remember my own reaction to hearing just how bad his behavior was. It's beyond the bounds of acceptable for anyone. Using his position to proposition women, handing it business cards to women he was interested in even in professional settings, defending pedophilia on his website as two consenting people when children can't functionally consent. Do I think he's a bad person? No. I disagree with a lot of what he's said and done and he's definitely pushed boundaries but I've never heard of him breaking boundaries, though it's highly possible. He was completely delightful when I met him in person. He's not the right person to be leading the free software movement anymore. He hasn't taken the steps required to develop the social skills needed for the role. He hasn't learned that there's a time for PR people to do the talking. He hasn't learned that there's appropriate times to not have a debate. These are all logical qualities of a leader that he doesn't have. Logically he should step back, reevaluate, and let what he's built continue to grow. It seems like he's doing that. He'll always have people willing to support him and work that he does.

> "He was completely delightful when I met him in person"

Really? That's far from my experience with meeting him. I found him to be physically and socially repulsive, but intellectually fascinating.

I was genuinely surprised myself. I've heard many of the same stories, but he was completely patient with me as I gushed my appreciation to him as he got off of a train and treated me with the utmost respect. I am not able to pick up on social cues easily myself but have worked very hard to become good at it. This is why I know it's possible to learn this skill of one puts in the effort.

If it comes down to whether RMS's position at CSAIL amounted to a leadership position or not, I'd venture that it did. Professors have institutional power that everyone else on the CSAIL list who isn't one don't have. Someone who abuses their name and position to blast screeds like that, I can see why CSAIL might not want him around anymore.

He was not a professor. He quit his job at MIT (as some sort of staff researcher/programmer) in 1984 to start the GNU project. He was an unpaid visiting scientist and had an office, although he was rarely in it (he spends a lot of time traveling). He did not have any institutional power beyond his participation as a rando on the mailing lists.

You're right, he was a "visiting scientist", whatever that means.

Being a leader of any sort makes it worse, but I don't think it's a necessary condition for justifying his removal.

Each person contributes to the flavor of the community in which they participate. It is within the right of those who lead the community to curate its flavor by adding or removing people when necessary.

In this his case, his removal was well-justified for the cause of keeping the community welcoming and safe-feeling for members of all genders.

i love this attempt to put gutter bumpers on the whole world. doomed, but adorable

MIT is allowed to use whatever behavior criteria MIT likes when determining who gets to participate in MIT.

Also don't be surprised if lots of disparate organizations agree that certain behaviors are inappropriate.

RMS and others are free to say or do whatever they please, but they aren't free from experiencing the consequences (social or otherwise) of their choices.

If Stallman's email made anyone feel 'unsafe', either that person has serious mental issues for such they should seek therapy, or they are pretending/self-generating these emotions as a way of gaining political leverage and power.

In fact, your message here makes me feel unsafe right now. Something needs to be done, call the mods.

Saying that Minsky having sex with underage girls would be morally okay is more than tactless - it is immoral.

Except he didn't say anything like this.

From another comment of mine, the specific relevant passage is on page 7. Copied verbatim - line with a '>' is Stallman quoting another e-mail in the thread.

"""

> Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it __rape__ in the Virgin Islands.

Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.

I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.

"""

His argument in this specific email- as I read it- was a variant of "Your Honor, I had no idea she wasn't willing and 18!" ie that Minsky didn't know and must therefore have been blameless.

I think it's an immoral argument too- Minsky should have known something was going on, and would be culpable. And it's very possible he did know.

But paired with RMS' prior pedophilia apologia, the combination is horrendous.

In the later e-mail, he argues that even if he knew that she was underage, it shouldn't be considered rape.

I hadn't seen that the entire email thread was published. I don't have time to read it now, but I'm hardly surprised, so I stand corrected.

This fucking guy.