Until this debacle I didn't realize so many people in our industry can voluntarily refrain from most basic reading comprehension. There's no discussion with people who simply refuse to read and comprehend a plain English sentence. There were moments I felt this was approaching Varelse level of Foreignness[0] - a mind so alien that it's hard to communicate, a mind that looks at a written sentence and understands the exact opposite of what it was communicating.
--
[0] - https://enderverse.fandom.com/wiki/Hierarchy_of_Foreignness
Most of the people around the campus probably don't think of him as "RMS, open source evangelist," they think of him as "RMS, that creepy guy who keeps hitting on people even after they ask him to stop." In that context, this letter can be read in a much worse light.
I had friends meet Stallman in some conference, and they told me he could make everybody (not just women) "feel uncomfortable around him" in some ways (but nothing an adult shouldn't be able to handle).
Now, if this is about attacking women (physically, or sexually, etc) that would be something else, and would need to be addressed on its own, not using his Epstein comments, and distorting them at that.
Even so, "Not taking "no" for an answer" seems to imply something close to rape or sexual assault -- wheres "making uncomfortable" seems to imply some inconvenience at most.
If he took his willy out, or touched some woman's privates, it shouldn't be called merely "making uncomfortable".
"Making Uncomfortable", at least to my understanding, falls more on the "whistles the Popeye theme incessantly", "smells", "shouts Eureka when he has an idea", "swears a lot", "is totally blunt about weight gains", "looks you dead in the eyes for minutes" etc, realm -- not fire-able offenses outside of a customer facing / corporate environment.
>"RMS, that creepy guy who keeps hitting on people even after they ask him to stop."
Like, asking some person out or something? There's a line there in how we went about it. Many a relationships and happy marriages have started from a person who insisted (even if they were told to stop or "it will never happen between us") - and that's for both men hitting on women, women hitting on men, gays hitting on gays, and lesbians hitting on lesbians. Humans are complicated that way. Some cases persisted for months of years, but eventually the other side agreed and they lived happily ever after (I know several cases).
Of course if he was a jerk about it that's different. There's a line between "asked me out several times even though I said no every time", and "he raised his voice/threatened/followed me out/etc".
(Note that myself can't help (mild aspie) but overanalyze the situation logically, YMMV. Probably you could already tell from the balanced parentheses in prose).
I had a colleague tell he won't invite X (a local celebrity with a lot of similarity in character with RMS) to our team because he "always feels like a fool when X is around".
I'm not completely sure about the answer, but that description sits well on a spectrum of anti-social and is the only lens through which all this makes sense to me.
> “When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him.
> I felt bad for him and also uncomfortable and manipulated. I did not like being put in that position — suddenly responsible for an “important” man. What had I done to get into this situation? I decided I could not be responsible for his living or dying, and would have to accept him killing himself. I declined further contact.
> He was not a man of his word or he’d be long dead.”
> —Betsy S., Bachelor’s in Management Science, ’85
I suspect that he was kidding, but who knows?
0) https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...
Most people on campus think of RMS as a socially awkward crusader for free software. He has a reputation for pushing himself into positions where he's not wanted (e.g. handing out protest fliers at industry talks where MIT wants to maintain good relations, or responding to otherwise unrelated email threads where someone mentions proprietary software).
He had awkward posters on his door, but I've never heard of RMS hitting on people after they've asked him to stop. There's a big gap between "feel uncomfortable" and what you describe.
Citation needed for everything after the "apparently"; but in particular - even the gossip I've read suggests he took No as an answer just fine.
The stories on HN over the last week have generally been him asking women out in a bizarre way and then accepting a quite predictable "no". And even then most of the stories are poorly sourced.
However, you _feeling_ uncomfortable is not enough. If you feel uncomfortable with people eating meat around you, that's your problem and not harassment, because eating meat is reasonable in our society.
I can't remember exactly when "Flame Warriors" came out ( https://www.politicsforum.org/flame-warriors/ ) - possibly back in 1999 ... but it was clear trouble was ahead...
This is a tried and true tactic and it works. Issue certainly is not "reading comprehension".
How many fingers?
None of the hit piece articles I've read portrayed a true characterization of what he wrote, most presented quotes out of context and instead focused their efforts on colorful commentary to suggest he was somehow in support of child rape - an accusation that's clear to invoke the ire of the masses.
If he were more socially apt maybe he would've known to never share his opinion of what he assumed the thoughts of his late friend were, not even on a private mailing list, unless of course it's to join the chorus of hate and accusations against him.
No, it's not about socially apt, his ideology is rooted too deeply in freedom to say opinions about sensitive issues and rejecting the norm. There were always going to be a lot of opinions "normies" wouldn't like. So the only way out for him was to fight back, attack the attackers, call the media "fake news" and all that.
BTW: I have also suffered the tough, complicated, unstable and rare personality of Stallman. Not for that I want to see him dead but like everyone else, when he has been unrespectful with me, I let him know. Everyone who knows Stallman knows he's a complicated and tough guy with very radical opinions and position. I was at a conference where he was cleaning the dirt from his toes while explaining everything, imagine the scene…
Edit: The downvotes are interesting given that this is how Stallman himself characterized those posts:
"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it."
However since we're in the era of unerasable past, its kind of expected for people to do dig up the past. I do wonder if "society" will start applying a consistency stick to what people say. I.e. if they have had a consistent view on say pedophilia in this instance.
On that note was Stallman consistent over time to this day?
“There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“
What's more interesting is the reason that Guardian article exists. It's basically an attempt to justify why Liberty (then the National Council for Civil Liberties), a respectable British political pressure group with close ties to our Labour party, was lobbying the government to legalise sex between adults and children a few decades ago. (They were also affiliated with the Paedophile Information Exchange, which was exactly what the title suggests.)
Why does something that happened a few decades ago matter now? Obviously it was relevant to the whole scandal over historic allegations of childhood sexual abuse, especially since PIE was run by pedophiles in important political positions. On top of that, one of the most important current-day Labour politicians Harriet Harman bootstrapped her political career using the important roles her and her husband played in the National Council for Civil Liberties during the exact time period where they had those ties to PIE and were doing that lobbying. She's still relevant today; various journalists and politicians are trying to wrangle her a position as Speaker or maybe even Prime Minister.
We could well end up with someone building a path to one of the most important positions in UK government on her role in an organisation lobbying in support of pedophilia a few decades ago whilst Stallman is made homeless based, in part, on his summary of the apologia for that lobbying printed in the mainstream press.
(Stallman completely missed this subtext, but that's not surprising; I don't think the full details became public knowledge until some time later.)
Except he has (https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html):
> 14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong) Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all.
I mean, when I was 10-12, I engaged in private circle jerks with other boys. And we "played Doctor" with girls. No sex, but feeling and "examinations". And spin the bottle games, for taking off clothes and kissing. And holding our brearh, and squeezing each others chests to pass out.
As a child, I might well have argued that.
But now, I appreciate that children are easily manipulated. So while it's possible that some particular child might have freely chosen to have sex with some particular adult, there's no way to determine that. And so the rule must be that children can't reliably consent.
Still, people have the right to say whatever they like. And people also have the right to vilify them for it. And so, recursively, ad infinitum.
He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children, because sometimes it's voluntary and therefore isn't harmful.
Do I really need to explain how "Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" can be summarized as "Sometimes sex with children is fine"?
No, he is not saying that. In that quote that you used he isn't even saying that pedophilia isn't harmful when it is consensual. I'm really interested how you reached that conclusion while reading the same text I'm reading.
> Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children
As far as I can see those are your words and not his. Where does he say that? Besides, not harmful and fine are to completely different things.
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
In those words he was saying that in some cases there is nothing wrong with an adult having sex with a child. So I guess what's left is whether "fine" and "nothing wrong with" are equivalent.
I find it bad myself (I'd say: have sex after 16 and generally with people closer to their age progressively -- e.g. a 16 yo should be able to sleep with a 18 year old, but not sure with a 25 or 40 year old, it would be more manipulative. After adult age, at 18 of course, anything should go), but from what I read:
"As of May 2019, in all but two states, a minor can marry with parental consent or with judicial authorisation, with the minimum marriage age, when all exemptions are taken into account, being as low as 14, and potentially lower."
So, if judges are OK with this, how can Stallman lose their job, not because he did it, but because he merely theorized about people doing it?
That is not making it clearer. First, I was interested in how you interpreted the quote you used as you did. This doesn't make it clearer. Secondly, I don't know if the quote you are using now is referencing the firs quote or something else. I suspect that you do not either.
Also it seems that you have some axe to grind against the man. Here is the full quote:
>> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
>> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
> In those words he was saying that in some cases there is nothing wrong with an adult having sex with a child.
We are not talking about those words, are we?
Just to be clear, I agree with everything that's being said in this article. I can't understand how some people read Stallman's words and understand the exact opposite of what he is saying. But I find equally incomprehensible how can you read that quote and still need an explanation on how one thing implies the other.
Here's where it all started:
> Me: "No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine"
> You: "Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all."
Here is a statement from Stallman himself summarizing his own words: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it."
So he said himself that what he was saying back then was that in some instances there is nothing wrong with sex between an adult and a child.
This is my answer to your original question. He explained it himself.
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
I'll also add some more context: These current thoughts on pedophilia were posted two days after the "Remove Richard Stallman" Medium post went up.
This was over a decade ago (first link), and appear to be musings on the issue. It doesn’t necessarily say (as you claim) - “I support this”
> If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm.
> A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them.
> And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".
> Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".
So why nobody attacks The Guardian for publishing such statements? Yes, these things are against common sense, against natural feelings, and I refuse to believe them. But Stallman was just repeating what someone else researched.
Was he repeating anyone here? Could you take the posts as a whole and resist the urge to cherry pick?
I believe the girl was 17 and probably gave the impression (when put in a group with other girls) to be older.
And 17 is not illegal in most countries, so morally that age by itself is and should not be a major issue.
“I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”
“There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“
Just not to be skeptical and keep his job...
Oh, the hypocrisy...
I admit I haven't been following this news very well so far, so I'm doubtless missing some important facts. I'd heard Stallman was stepping down because of something he said about Minsky, but I have no idea what that was. If this is it, and this article is correct (edit: based on additional info here and elsewhere, it seems Stallman has a long history of questionable behaviour towards women that was also addressed in the initial article, so this new article is omitting quite a bit), then I'm baffled that he has to step down from anything. What he said, that the girl was coerced to appear willing, seems pretty clear to me, and presenting that as him saying that she was actually willing, sounds like a pretty clear and blatant lie to me. Seems worth criticising the organisations that spread that lie.
I'm generally in favour of fighting rape culture and child abuse with all that we've got, and Epstein is clearly pure evil. If Minsky has sex with an underage girl, it doesn't even matter whether she appeared willing or not; that's just wrong. In that sense, Stallman sticking up for his friend was probably not the greatest idea, but if he said she was coerced, and not actually willing, then it's wrong that he should lose his job for saying things he never said.
And yeah, sure, Stallman is a weirdo. Occasionally even a disgusting weirdo maybe (I remember a video where he seemed to pick something from his toes and put it in his mouth), and I recently read a description of events where he publicly embarrassed a woman for being present at a tech related event. (Edit: it seems he has a long history creepiness towards young women, including his students.) If you're gonna fire him, fire him for that, not for something he didn't even say in a private mailing list.
In general, I'm fine with weirdos. We need more of them, not less. Being a weirdo is no excuse to act like an asshole, but on its own it's no reason to ostracise someone.
But this issue? If the description from the article is correct, it seems based on a blatant lie.
Those are also lies, probably. Read all the comments here - or link to an actual instance of "additional info here and elsewhere" and I may be actually able to link you to a denial/ proof that it's fabricated. Eg. the most egregious stuff I've read against him was published by Gruber aka "daringfireball", and were all proven to be shameless lies (and rather obvious and easy to dispel ones, after one learns a bit of history about RMS. Like, that he was never married, wasn't on the board of VA Linux, etc)
These are very different levels of "wrong". Forced sex is much worse than consensual sex.
No basis is offered for why we should think this is "most plausible", except that Stallman likes Minsky and does not think it plausible that he did a bad thing.
There are some summaries which misrepresent what he said, but what he actually said was definitely something people could reasonably object to, especially given the longer context of him saying crazy stuff on related topics before.
That said the language of diversity, fairness, inclusivity, tolerance, etc. isn’t meant to be taken literally (though it is by the intended audience, expectedly), or alternatively it’s applied at the discretion of those in power at the time. In the USSR and China (and other places) terms got used and abused to defeat previous in-groups (factions who held the same beliefs, mind you) who were taking too much power or were threatening those in power (even though all these people were in the same group or party).
All these terms are tools. They kind of mean them but they are double edged swords which will be used at discretion and will be interpreted at discretion as well.
They pulled the same crap in China, with excitable young minds as useful idiots serving the hidden political agendas of actors behind the scene.
It is informative to seriously review the Cultural Revolution, and the ensuing damage to the Chinese nation.
It reminds me also of a funny and universal thing I have noticed for example on Reddit. Moderators of subreddits, many of them dedicated to noble causes and ideas and supposedly anti system tend to be extremely autocratic and arbitrary in their decisions, even the worst judge in America would be more level headed.
https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...
Someone else downthread also linked about how a woman he worked with on a Linux project had to be warned of his arrival ahead of time so she could leave because of his aggressive advances toward her.
> I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”
That sounds like a joke. I mean, it is a joke. That isn't a serious comment/strategy on harassment. No creep has ever been forestalled by someone claiming to be a vi user.
1 stupid opinion and 3 negative comments, one of which looks like a joke, from 1980 to 2019 isn't evidence of a problem with Stallman.
How is a host meant to figure any of the details in that rider out ahead of a Stallman visit without him telling them? It could easily be a log of all the things that have gone wrong for him in the past.
People like to go to the parrot quote. It wouldn't at all surprise me if a Stallman fan who was putting him up the the night tried to buy a parrot if they thought it would make him happy. The man's selfless dedication to the public good has earned him a couple of true believers over the years.
It is also comprehensive and doesn't mention anything about Vi.
"He's a pretty eccentric bloke" is not enough to justify using something that looks like a joke as evidence of problems stretching back to 1980. That quote is 33% of the shocking evidence mentioned in this link section 2.
The vi vs emacs 'holy war' is also a long running joke that Stallman gets involved in sometimes. He doesn't actually object to vi.
> Someone else downthread also linked about how a woman he worked with on a Linux project had to be warned of his arrival ahead of time so she could leave because of his aggressive advances toward her.
Just an FYI the person who said that already had beef with RMS. I’d recommend reading fully into the situation - perhaps you still believe it, but at least you’ll know.
Or perhaps a counter-balance to the "Stallman run amok/let's crucify him" variety? How about that?
Is the "tip of the iceberg" meant to be sarcastic? One of the headings is even "1. Richard Stallman has problematic opinions". Opinions are enough to have someone persecuted? What happened to free discourse then?
Are only "non problematic" opinions allowed? And who would be the arbiter of this? At some point a gay man being married was also a "problematic opinion". Or a mixed race couple. And not in Nazi Germany, in e.g. 70s USA. Let that sink in, before condemning "problematic" opinions.
"MIT, by endorsing Stallman, also gives legitimacy to these ideas."
MIT endorses Stallman as an academic or whatever he employs him for. Not as a wholesale controller and endorser of Stallman's ideas and personality.
"I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”"
That's a horrifying story? At best it's a joke about someone who hits on freshman students frequently.
"He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it."
Oh, the humanity.
"the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…"
Spoken like a person who has never experienced the 60s and 70s campuses...
"I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him."
OK, that's creepy. Could also be a desperate attempt at connection by a depressive. It was also a conversation between two adults, and one could tell him to fuck (which from what I gather, is what happened, if more eloquently, and without further issue).
"But MIT is a privileged place. We have the right to choose who we admit, hire, or endorse."
I thought the whole idea these days was against privilege.
And where were all these good souls when their privileged MIT helped threaten Aaron Swartz with jail, and helped led him to commit suicide?
It's actually not a modern day thing, it's more like classic propaganda. Someone motivates someone to lie about something, then tells specific people in the press who are willing to write about it, often for some monetary gain. This has been done for as long as "free" press existed.
I haven't even found anything concrete about this whole debacle, and HN usually has the cold hard facts tldr laid bare in the top comment. Not this time. It's a mult level wtf.
The MIT and some members of the FSF should be ashamed of themselves.
Never heard anything worthwhile from his critics. It is certainly not Stallman that makes our industry look bad. That is on you and that is all there is to say.
Diversity: It's not about opinion, but about an authority figure doing things that harm his colleagues. I could have the opinion that you're an idiot and a liar, but if we were working together and I would constantly say that in the workplace where everyone hears, I would probably get fired.
Inclusiveness: It's not about ostracising, either, certainly not because of some mental disability. If someone harms his coworkers and won't stop, they cannot continue working.
Fairness: Again, the problem is not opinions but harmful actions. It certainly isn't about conformity. Harming the people you work with is not some sign of genius conducive to creativity.
I think that too many people are expressing strong opinions on the matter of sexual harassment and sexual assault without having studied the subject at all. Those are opinions based on deep ignorance of the matter.
> Diversity: It's not about opinion, but about an authority figure doing things that harm his colleagues. I could have the opinion that you're an idiot and a liar, but if we were working together and I would constantly say that in the workplace where everyone hears, I would probably get fired.
> Inclusiveness: It's not about ostracising, either, certainly not because of some mental disability. If someone harms his coworkers and won't stop, they cannot continue working.
> Fairness: Again, the problem is not opinions but harmful actions. It certainly isn't about conformity. Harming the people you work with is not some sign of genius conducive to creativity.
> I think that too many people are expressing strong opinions on the matter of sexual harassment and sexual assault without having studied the subject at all. Those are opinions based on deep ignorance of the matter.
I don't understand how any of this applies to Stallman. As far as I've gathered, most of the outrage against him are due to a few different posts over the last couple decades. Regardless of how morally reprehensible you think his views are, he's not saying them "constantly" and his actions certainly don't fit "harm his coworkers and won't stop".
Also you say it's about "harmful actions", but what harmful actions has he done? I ask this honestly and would like to know.
edit: Cleaned up the formatting of quotes.
Start with what exactly? What is this in response to?
According to those actually familiar with the case, certain recent actions by Stallman drew attention to his problematic decades-long behavior, which finally resulted, after decades of ignored complaints, in his dismissal.
There's no denying the well-established fact that the vast majority of cases of inappropriate behavior goes unpunished; in a few cases, some media attention can lead to action. The percentage of bad actors (and according to those closest to him, Stallman is a bad actor) that are finally disciplined remains, sadly, very low, but it's a start.
There are always hysterics who cry about a PC mob or witch hunts, but those who are interested in the facts, take the time to Google for relevant studies, consider the numbers, and as those shrill claims just don't square with the facts, so are best ignored.
> If there are a large number of people in the United States who think that child pornography and sexual intercourse with minors should be legalized, this is the first I’m hearing of it
He never even said that!
This is just another SJW warrior pissed off about the fact that the reality differs from the fiction she has created for herself. People disagree, people are rude, and you WILL be offended sometimes, in the real world. And learning to deal with it is part of being an adult.
What do you think he really meant when he stated this?
A similar argument is already in practice in many places where illegal drugs possession is not punished (up to certain limits) but drug production is. Or when offering prostitution is not punished but requesting it is. Mind I am not saying they are exactly the same, I only showing that legal distinction is arbitrary and people should be free to comment on it.
I think this is the crux of the difference here. I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever. That's an absurd proposition to me. Maybe that's why I seem to be talking past people about this.
Nobody ever faces any consequences for having any opinion, but many people very often face consequence for expressing some opinions, in some forums and under certain circumstances. For example, politician are commonly voted out of office, losing their job in the process, for expressing some opinions, and here in the UK even ordinary party members are commonly expelled for expressing some opinions. So even in free democracies, we accept and even expect certain consequences for voicing certain opinions, by certain people, in certain forums, and under certain circumstances. The decision of what those consequences are, and who, why and when they would face them is often made by a particular relevant institution. So it's a matter of degree, not of principle.
Which is irrelevant, as the parent didn't say that "expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever".
He just said that having that particular opinion should not have any consequences.
That said,
>That's an absurd proposition to me.
What exactly is absurd about free speech and no consequences for expressing whatever opinion (even "Hitler's ideas were good") -- except when opinion becomes action?
Obviously nobody includes "people shouldn't dislike you for your opinions", or "your readership should not change for your opinions" when they say about no consequences.
They mean: not getting thrown to jail, not loosing your job, especially if it's totally unrelated with your opinions, not being ex-communicated, etc...
And if friends and family could also get sticks out of their asses, and e.g. be OK with you having a different opinion (e.g. being atheist or a Democrat or a Republican or whatever), and just judge you on what you actually do, that would be great too...
(of course you shouldn't write a post about how "X company is crap" if you work for X and not expect to get fired")
I'll use this as my example for why I think it's absurd. Why do you think you shouldn't write that post? It's just an opinion, right?
If I understand you correctly then you're saying that there are some opinions that you could expect to be fired for expressing, even if they are completely legal to express. I agree with that.
Our definitions of what you can expect to have consequences however seems very different. And that's fine.
Au contraire, I think you should write that post if you're of that opinion. And I think it would be beneficial to society to write it too.
What I wrote is that you shouldn't write it "and not expect to get fired" -- because that's what will probably happen. If it was to me, that shouldn't happen either. But a company is a private business, and the law allows them to fire people at will (I'd change that too, like we have it in Europe).
I stated though that you should not "lose your job [for your opinions], especially if it's totally unrelated with your opinions" (the job being unrelated to what you spoke, that is).
Extreme example: An employee at your company keeps a blog about how having sex with children is perfectly fine, how black people are all stupid and how jews should be exterminated because Hitler had the right idea. Also that almost all accusations of rape are false because all women are lying bitches. All perfectly legal opinions that don't relate directly to his work.
Is it your position that none of this should have any effect on his position?
I want to live in a free society where it's okay to be wrong.
This is a huge misunderstanding of the problem with "offensive".
Suppose that at a work meeting, I, the boss or a well-respected engineer, say, "French people are stupid, and their work is subpar; also, they're liars," or something of the sort. At the meeting none of the French employees are present and no one tells them about it. They are not offended personally at all. However, the damage of this offense is not diminished in the least by their absence. It creates a certain dynamic where their colleagues will disrespect them. They're feelings aren't hurt, but the harm against them is real. How are they supposed to "learn to deal with that," being adults and all?
This is what we SJWs mean when we say "offensive," or, more precisely, this is the main issue for us. Not that someone's feelings are hurt, but that they are diminished by the social dynamics that certain statements and behaviors set in motion.
So the answer is that a respected person may not ever have any opinion that can be construed as offensive ever in their entire life? I mean in this case Stallman didn't even go to any effort to spread these ideas around. The fact that they are even known is due to the articles written about a few posts spread over the last couple decades.
Also I'm a little unclear about your references to female students and LGBT members...weren't the posts that people took offense to mostly regarding pedophelia? Did I miss his other writings?
They might have been in the 70s and 80s. In 2019, if a LGBT member makes some threats, the institution will usually cave. In the old times people could lose their job if they were found out to be LGBT. Today people lose their jobs if they are accused from an LGBT perspective.
Pretending the power dynamics are the same as in decades past is hypocritical. Parents, relatives, and rural societies can still be (and are) cruel against LBGT people. Major companies, institutions, the law, modern media, etc? Not so much.
Too many people champion LGBT rights, feminism, etc today only because it's the default in "polite society" and the circles of power. If it was 1970 they would have followed the then mainstream treatment of women/LGBT, either like sheep or to their advantage -- as in fact, the majority (their parents) then did. Doesn't matter if they're different people than their parents -- the hypocrisy and the mechanism is the same is the same.
Only few courageous people have written/spoke out for decades about such matters, and now people come and use them to pursue careers, or gain followers -- and even more so, many use those causes to be cruel to people and gain power and social capital, the same way they would use their privilege against women/LGBT back in the day...
It's like Kurt Cobain seeing all the BS jocks that put him down sing "Smells like teen spirit"...
As for the "lots of research", in social studies it takes time to catch up with society (and it follows what brings in grants). There was lots of research back in the day too...
Well unless you cite the research, the only option you've given us is to take your word.
Let them have their own industry.
"What he should have done was in my opinion deliver one policy speech. 'This is where we stand on antisemitism. This is where we stand on the mechanisms for dealing with antisemitism in our party. Case closed.' The other major mistake he made was .. a complete abandonment of the principle of free speech. People have a right to say and think whatever they want. 'I'm a member of the Labour Party. OK. I subscribe to Labour Party's political platform. That's what makes me a member.' But that doesn't mean you have the right to troll my Facebook postings, you have the right to vet everything I say or post on Instagram. I mean that's Romania under Ceausescu, that's North Korea under Kim Il Sung. That's now going to be the mandate of the Labour Party? To be trolling in your thoughts and ideas? To see whether you are an antisemite? Everybody, including you, including your camera people harbors some antisemitic stereotypes... OK. Who cares? I mean It's very hard to extirpate, ... because it's rooted in thousands of years. I mean it's everywhere. It's part of the atmosphere, it's part of the environment, it's part of the history. Do I not harbor any anti-black stereotypes any racist stereotypes? Do I harbor no sexist stereotypes? No! And now we are going to have a Labour Party, which is going to [?] the depths of your conscience, ... looking for some evidence of antisemitism, ...? It's complete lunacy and it's a complete repudiation, abandonment of the most fundamental principles of what's called the Enlightenment beginning with as the Germans put it in that nice German folk song Die Gedanken sind Frei (Thoughts are free). People have the right to think what they believe, and since thought is inseparable from speech, you have the right to think and speak as you please. And if you don't like what a person is saying then you have the right either not to listen or try to persuade the person ... but what you don't have the right to do is penalize people, punish people, expel people for their thoughts... It's a complete political disaster because all it does is it forces people to repress what they're thinking until a demagogue comes along and starts saying what you're thinking, what you were forced to repress. And instead of your erroneous thoughts having been answered, the fact that you were forced to repress them, it validates it for you. ... And then the demagogue comes along and starts to exploit all of those repressed thoughts. So morally it's unacceptable to try to police people's thoughts and politically it's a complete disaster." https://youtu.be/OPYfLY2cAi4?t=616
Update: There is also that famous video where Finkelstein talks about the "crocodile tears" of a German student taking about the son of Holocaust survivors being ... offensive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O5zgXeCynQ&t=209s
I just hope that we applied the same rationale in an even-keeled and level-headed manner in other cases where similar concerns are raised.
I hope we don't make exceptions for our favorite pet causes no matter how close to the heart and rule against those who were found to have either voiced opinions or acted in an antagonistic manner to such causes, even when those decisions are thorny and sentimental.[1][2][3]
[1] Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation/m...
[2] Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns in wake of backlash to Prop 8
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/03/mozilla-c...
[3] Did Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Deserve To Be Removed From His Position?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ce...
edit: typo
> Diversity -- but no diversity of opinion...
Is there any sort of evidence of action? Him having had sex with children?
If anything, it's you who left out the part where Stallman already said, before this incindent, that he was wrong. I.e. he said it because he actually changed his mind and believes he was wrong, not in order to "save face" or clear his image or avoid scandal or whatnot.
> If anything, it's you who left out the part where Stallman already said, before this incindent, that he was wrong. I.e. he said it because he actually changed his mind and believes he was wrong, not in order to "save face" or clear his image or avoid scandal or whatnot.
He posted that after the storm had started, three days before his resignation. A few days after the "Remove Richard Stallman" Medium post was written.
Do you think that's a complete coincidence? Has nothing to do with saving face and only his desire to explain that he had changed his mind?
From what I can tell from the snippets posted here, he isn't saying it's fine, he's saying he's seen insufficient evidence to form an opinion - and in such a state, he resists those who would force one on him with faulty reasoning. Or, to put it another way, he views morality with three responses [yes, no, I don't know], which causes friction with people who view it with two:
"Is involuntary pedophilia bad?" [yes] "Is all pedophilia bad?" [idk - insufficient evidence on voluntary or its inherent lack of existence] "Do you think that all pedophilia is bad?" [no - position held is idk, not yes] "Therefore, you think all pedophilia is good." [no - position held is idk, not yes]
A similar comparison might be being asked if you enjoyed an unreleased book, then using "no[, I haven't read it and formed an opinion]" to justify "you think the book is bad."
ETA: also, if he hasn't said more on the subject in recent years, it's silly to assume that he necessarily still hold these views or lack thereof.
You are right - I was under the impression that was posted earlier, but he posted that immediately after the email thread was "leaked" to Vice. It's no coincidence; I still think that, given his previous as well as ulterior behavior, as well as the timing, that it's a clarification he felt he needed to make (given the public accusations that started pouring). I.e. it still doesn't look to me like a dishonest attempt to save face by hiding his controversial opinions... he reacted too quick with that, while ignoring everything else.
Can people still have controversial opinions without getting their lives destroyed?
Not without losing his job, apparently.
If people need to be concerned about having their lives ruined over what they write in an email, or an online forum, can’t you see what kind of chilling effect this has?
Or an employee that regularly talks publicly about how horrible your company is and that no one should work there. Can't discourage any expression of opinion, so what can you do?
Because what you said is such a broad generalization, that it feels "obviously true". But if you object to a person not being hired because she's black (although that's personally reasonable in some very limited circumstances) - then maybe you should object too for a person being dismissed on words completely unrelated to the work he was supposed to perform.
Or an employee who regularly publishes manifestos on why people of certain skin colors should be murdered and exterminated?
These are extreme examples of course, but you are saying that ideally no one should experience any consequences for expressing any opinion outside of work.
It's not that they should face no consequences - they should face consequences in the circles in which they express those views, ideally in the form of people disagreeing with them, but possibly also wanting to dissociate with them. If they try to keep those views out of the classroom, I don't have a problem with it.
In the classroom, you are the instrument of a consensus view. You must do your job. If you do it well, that's great. Your views outside the classroom should be irrelevant, and I can't help but notice that a lot of the time when people get in trouble for their views outside of work, it's because someone de-anonymised them.
We cannot have a world where people's actual opinions are forced to be equal to those their employers would be comfortable with. Your extreme examples are extreme indeed, but there are many examples, particularly in authoritarian regimes, where the extreme view is the correct one. So extreme-ness is not a good metric for whether views should be allowed or not.
I think the solution for everyone is to stay silent, and to discuss their views anonymously online. Their views will still have force at the ballot box - as they did at the last election (as much as I did not like the outcome, it was evidence that social shaming has limited power at changing how people vote). We should be suspicious of attempts to de-anonymise the internet.
Basically, dissent is important. So important that it is worth tolerating bad views to ensure dissent is not suppressed when it is needed.
Everyone who pictures the cancel-culture norms resulting in some sort of paradise where everyone believes nice things are delusional, they are simply ceding power to those who will use it for personal gain, and giving the currently powerful the tools to to cement that power.
In this extreme example of mine, would you be happy as a parent to have your children in this teacher's classroom? Would you be taking part in a free speech suppressing pitchfork mob if you were to call the school and express your opinion that you don't want your child to be taught by a pedophile?
“There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“
I can give you the links but it's quite easy to Google.
Edit since I dug them up for another comment:
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...
https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
Are people allowed to change their mind after having conversations that convince them that their position is wrong?
Especially if that recanting happens to take place right as the shitstorm about his writings and behavior has started.
I pretty much fully agree with this. I don't think he's evil or anything. The consequences of his statements just finally caught up with him, and in a big way since he seems to have had a strong "It's just how RMS is, he's such a great leader, just ignore him or steer clear of him or whatever" shield around him for all those years.
He was merely voicing the opinion "if all is consensual what's the problem"... An opinion he changed from later.
You have just outlined the double-speak of the SV technocracy, which have imposed these hidden codes on those that they disagree with. Mind you that the media has now amplified this and have used all of this to create a new enemy called Richard Stallman. As long as this appalling cancel-culture behaviour stops, he certainly won't be the last one to fall victim to these purity tests.
Absolutely hypocritical indeed.
what really happened was that he went from holding leadership positions in three prominent institutions to just one. it's easy to have strong feelings about these issues, but let's try to keep things in perspective.
He’s had to move, he’s lost all his potions, etc.
There was very little discourse and punishment was swift. That’s not really the way justice should be served. This man (RMS), essentially spent his life fighting for others. He was thrown to the wolves without discussion.
We don’t know if it’s true but:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21103133
In either case, to your comment, he was stripped of his life. To say otherwise is disingenuous.
It’d be like saying: I took your house and job, but left you the car.
That’d still be striping you of land and title (to your comment)
> I continue to be the Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project. I do not intend to stop any time soon.
apparently the site was previously defaced by an FSF employee.
and according to stallman's personal site, he's found interim housing (https://stallman.org/).
Accommodations underneath bridges and even worse places for our homeless are unfortunately a widespread issue in the US.
You are right. Let's try to keep things in perspective.
It's not just them, this seems to be a far leftist direction in general.
Diversity - I'm fine with a lack of diversity of opinions on whether or not minors can be willing participants in pedophile relationships.
Inclusiveness - Really? Nobody ostracized him because he is an aspie. It is disingenuous to even say that.
Fairness - Nobody fired him, he resigned and let's be honest, the backlash he received was fairly minor. Yes old statements were dug up, but most people are not okay with the statements he made then, they just didn't know about them.
> holier-than-thou hypocritical tell-tales and people who enjoy yielding power over others by drawing lynch-mobs
Who does this label apply to? Anyone who gets upset at a public figure's viewpoints? Where are you personally drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable.
This isn't just about Epstein. Epstein is what brought Stallman's views to the spotlight, but the focus is primarily on former stances on pedophilia he made that are far more damaging things to say than whatever people were saying he said about Epstein or the girls involved with him. Stallman doesn't seem to believe that people can be groomed into appearing like they want to do something when they really don't or aren't aware of the consequences of it.
For the positive freedom liberals, diversity of minorities must be enforced and any opinion that may hinder them must be silenced. However, this is taken to a logical extreme.
Every identity must be inclusive and forced to be inclusive and accomodating even if they may be a minority themself.
In the logical extreme, fairness under the legal court is thrown out because the legal court is viewed as corrupt from being staffed with corrupt figures favoring the majority identity.
Extrajudicial means are employed to force minority identities upward because they don't believe that the negative freedom of the free market can allow for that.
Eccentricity is still allowed, however it is a different kind than the one of computer nerds like Richard Stallman. Non-conforming gender identities or images of body beauty are a-okay but not awkward men. The acceptance of the awkward men were a triumph for the awkward men against the neurotypical men, but now they have become seen as the enemy against other minorities because now their cringe-inducing awkwardness is seen as a barrier to entry that drives off neurotypical minorities.
This is all really musical chairs operating under an inherently unjust system and instead of challenging that system, they only challenge the "bad" actors and hope that somehow the system will become more friendly for everyone.
i.e. people shouldn't just protest it for people they like, but people they hate or vehemently disagree with as well.
And why are you arguing he is pro-rape?
This whole conversation has left a really bad taste for me regarding the HN community, it really sickens me when I see that so many users in here are trying to justify pro-paedophilia quotes, I thought that the lowest this community went was when it witch-hunted a poor guy after the Boston terrorist attack some years ago, but this is on a new other (and sicker) level.
Inclusiveness -- but let's ostracize the non-conforming aspie...
Fairness -- but let's fire people or make them resign from unrelated positions for their personal opinions, because obviously all of a person's life should serve as a big PR, and god forbid they don't play the role 24/7. Someone might call them for it on Twitter, and what could their employee/organization do other than fire them? (in the "Land of the free" nonetheless)
Not to mention the blatant conformity and blandness -- punishing experimentation, personality, eccentricity, being the devil's advocate, controversiality, and, worse of all, being 'unprofessional' (as if the FSF is something akin to 1970s IBM)...
First they came for Patch Adams...
The current environment rewards the worst kind of scum: holier-than-thou hypocritical tell-tales and people who enjoy yielding power over others by drawing lynch-mobs.
I have wrote against Epstein here in several threads, but I could have lunch with a person who has controversial opinions on the matter like Stallman. People like those who finger-pointed and cheered on the personal consequences on Stallman, I'd prefer to live in another universe from.
Are you happy now? Justice for Epstein's victims served? (on someone who never even met Epstein)
Speak up now, or don't bother to cry crocodile tears and set up the "black ribbon" when we eventually lose Stallman, and tell stories of how he inspired you, etc...