Re:Richard Stallman’s Exit Heralds a New Era in Tech
by salawat on Monday September 23, 2019 @11:36PM
(#21056256)
>Why do you believe the FSF and MIT didn't investigate? Many people have called this the straw that broke the camel's back.
To be honest?
If they had, I'd have expected an official rebuttal, and a call for either calm, or a full retraction.
Since neither has happened, I see it as a duty to dig up, and try to propagate the facts as far as possible.
To that end a compilation of accusations, rebuttals, and sources follow.
Specifically, Stallman has been accused of
(1) Defending Jeffrey Epstein (while in reality Stallman was defending Marvin Minsky);
(2) Describing Epstein's victims as entirely willing (while in reality Stallman was arguing that one specific victim of Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, was presented to Minsky as entirely willing because she was coerced by Epstein, not that she was entirely willing);
(3) Defendinf pedophilia (while in reality Stallman was arguing that age doesn't matter in a case of rape because rape is always a terrible act no matter the age of the victim);
(4) Defending pedophilia in the past (while in reality Stallman already countered his controversial claim from 2006 -in which he expressed skepticism in case of consensual sex- with a comment in 2013, where he said that children can't really be consensual);
(5) Condoned sexual assault (while in reality Stallman was arguing that the term "sexual assault" does not fit the description of Minsky's act towards Virginia Giuffre since she wasn't assaulted by Minsky but coerced by Epstein; Stallman also added that the term is generally too vague as it refers to bad acts that can range from harmful to very harmful, and that the term usually makes readers think of the worst case);
(6) Implying that the victim wasn't harmed (while in reality Stallman explicitly claimed that she was harmed);
(7) Making comments that are excuses about rape, assault and child sex trafficking (while he condemned all three as explained above);
(8) Used to keep a mattress in his MIT office, implying sexual activity and/or macho behavior at work (while in reality Stallman is known to have lived in his office for a certain period of his life).
As a consequence of these writings, Stallman resigned from his position at MIT and also from his position at the Free Software Foundation.
Point being: Let his words/acts stand as they are, and come to your own judgement.
There is a petition floating around for journalists to own up and post a retraction (not that anyone is expecting miracles), but if you're against having the Press straight up spreading lies, consider offering a signature.
I leave it to every individuals conscience to make of it what they will... I just know that to me, this entire thing stinks to high heaven. I cannot see any way in which any of this boondoggle can be remotely said to have happened in good faith. Spread the word, or just at least make your decision on the most accurate information possible.
To be honest?
If they had, I'd have expected an official rebuttal, and a call for either calm, or a full retraction.
Since neither has happened, I see it as a duty to dig up, and try to propagate the facts as far as possible.
To that end a compilation of accusations, rebuttals, and sources follow.
Specifically, Stallman has been accused of
(1) Defending Jeffrey Epstein (while in reality Stallman was defending Marvin Minsky);
(2) Describing Epstein's victims as entirely willing (while in reality Stallman was arguing that one specific victim of Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, was presented to Minsky as entirely willing because she was coerced by Epstein, not that she was entirely willing);
(3) Defendinf pedophilia (while in reality Stallman was arguing that age doesn't matter in a case of rape because rape is always a terrible act no matter the age of the victim);
(4) Defending pedophilia in the past (while in reality Stallman already countered his controversial claim from 2006 -in which he expressed skepticism in case of consensual sex- with a comment in 2013, where he said that children can't really be consensual);
(5) Condoned sexual assault (while in reality Stallman was arguing that the term "sexual assault" does not fit the description of Minsky's act towards Virginia Giuffre since she wasn't assaulted by Minsky but coerced by Epstein; Stallman also added that the term is generally too vague as it refers to bad acts that can range from harmful to very harmful, and that the term usually makes readers think of the worst case);
(6) Implying that the victim wasn't harmed (while in reality Stallman explicitly claimed that she was harmed);
(7) Making comments that are excuses about rape, assault and child sex trafficking (while he condemned all three as explained above);
(8) Used to keep a mattress in his MIT office, implying sexual activity and/or macho behavior at work (while in reality Stallman is known to have lived in his office for a certain period of his life).
As a consequence of these writings, Stallman resigned from his position at MIT and also from his position at the Free Software Foundation.
Sources in chronological order:
September 12
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
September 13
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191... https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r... September 14
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe...
Septembet 16
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relations... https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-spea... https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#16_September... https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns
OTHER REFERENCES Stallman on his home
https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html
Stallman on Pedophilia, 2006
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
Stallman on pedophilia, part deuce, 2013
https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
Point being: Let his words/acts stand as they are, and come to your own judgement.
There is a petition floating around for journalists to own up and post a retraction (not that anyone is expecting miracles), but if you're against having the Press straight up spreading lies, consider offering a signature.
https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution...
I leave it to every individuals conscience to make of it what they will... I just know that to me, this entire thing stinks to high heaven. I cannot see any way in which any of this boondoggle can be remotely said to have happened in good faith. Spread the word, or just at least make your decision on the most accurate information possible.