News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by viraptor on Monday September 30, 2019 @06:52AM (#21113675)
> If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity.

There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness. If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader. That doesn't remove anything from their achievements and abilities to contribute or to spread new ideas. The post says "If an occasional social gaffe or failed attempt at humor is all it takes to get thrown out on the street" - entirely omitting the space occupied by almost all of us: between homelessness and being a leader of a global movement/organisation.

We can at the same time tolerate awkwardness and hold our local and global leaders to high standards.

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by TeMPOraL on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:41AM (#21114137)
> There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness. If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader.

Honestly, they got him because they could. There's plenty of politicians, including state heads, regularly making offensive and sexist comments. I haven't seen anyone attempting or even proposing a coup because of that. It usually gets a day or two on the news, and then is remembered only in jokes.

> That doesn't remove anything from their achievements and abilities to contribute or to spread new ideas.

Of course it does, because being a leader is the ability "to contribute or to spread new ideas". Moreover, in this particular case, we're hearing plenty of voices trying to retroactively deny RMS's achievements.

> entirely omitting the space occupied by almost all of us: between homelessness and being a leader of a global movement/organisation.

In this particular case, it was a jump over that space occupied by almost all of us. In a blink of an eye, this incident made an old person not employable and apparently (according to the TFA) homeless. Maybe a different, more emotionally and intellectually balanced person could handle this and resume a fulfilling but low-profile life. But such people don't generally end up with achievements or roles as RMS did. It takes a pretty unbalanced person to persist in pushing views that go against the commercial zeitgeist so long, so successfully, and without compromise.

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by viraptor on Monday September 30, 2019 @08:18AM (#21114471)
> In a blink of an eye, this incident made an old person not employable and apparently (according to the TFA) homeless.

He already entered his retirement age. (Unless I miscalculated) He's a clever man - if he's got no retirement fund, or stable accommodation by now, that's a different issue and only brought forwards faster, not created now.

I mean, if the accommodation was provided entirely unofficially by MIT this whole time and was yanked away without warning, I really sympathise. But I find that idea unlikely without some good confirmation.

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by rndgermandude on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:23AM (#21113950)
There has to be a third option between "tolerate everything" and "completely oust him from public life as violently as you can".
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by viraptor on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:30AM (#21114021)
Why do you think the second case happened? He resigned from a prestigious position on his own terms. If I expected anyone to tell straight "I've been forced to resign" or "I've been fired due to politics", it would be RMS. He didn't, and nobody seems to be preventing him to take part in public life - as evidenced by the number of posts, there's a number of people who still want to work with him.
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by rndgermandude on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:35AM (#21114072)
He was witch-hunted on the internet by a serial witch-hunter, some "journalists" who lack basic reading comprehension and the lynch mob that ensured. It's naive to believe he resigned voluntarily. He was pressured into it, probably believed the witch-hunters, lynchmobgoers and finger pointers to a certain degree that he indeed is evil, resigned to protect what he created and therefore was nice enough to not shit all over the institutions he created on his way out.

His reputation was set on fire and burned to the ground, he was expelled from his life's work, might even have become homeless as a direct result, and most of the people he considered friends or friendly vanished over night (tho, some remain as you pointed out, but decidedly few) destroying most of his social (support) network.

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by viraptor on Monday September 30, 2019 @08:07AM (#21114363)
He built a global movement challenging people publically and he's happy to semi-publically state his opinions about sexual assault at the worst possible time, but he will stay silent about pressure to step down to be nice? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that.
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by rndgermandude on Monday September 30, 2019 @08:14AM (#21114431)
>He built a global movement challenging people publically

Exactly, is it hard to imagine he doesn't want to take a blow torch to his own creation just as a last "fuck you" farewell?

>happy to semi-publically state his opinions about sexual assault

He said sexual assault is bad. How dare he?!

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by tomclive on Monday September 30, 2019 @09:19AM (#21115039)
He rejects the term 'Sexual Assault' completely. https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assult

There's plenty of troubling stuff in his writing.

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by sergioj97 on Monday September 30, 2019 @10:52AM (#21115976)
Reading your link, I don't find anything troubling. He says the term is too ambiguous and it makes it easy to (potentially maliciously) misrepresent someone's acts.

If you find anything else he's said troubling please provide me some references as I'm trying to read anything that may help me to understand this episode. (I've already read about his former and present opinions on paedophilia)

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by rndgermandude on Monday September 30, 2019 @09:28AM (#21115104)
Yes, he rejects the specific term as too non-specific, not that there is sexual violence at all.
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by sergiosgc on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:27AM (#21113988)
> There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness.

You are saying that socially awkward people shouldn't be leaders. RMS can't change, he isn't socially awkward by choice. That's his personality.

I disagree. Leaders have flaws, and social awkwardness isn't anywhere near the top of the worst flaws. In fact, in RMS' case, I think it was part of the reason for his success in promoting free software.

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by twelvechairs on Monday September 30, 2019 @06:59AM (#21113743)
> If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader.

Isn't the whole point of a 'leader' that they challenge the status quo not bite their tongue to follow it?

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by viraptor on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:06AM (#21113799)
The point of a leader is that they do/present something that gathers followers. If the followers say "no, that's not ok", they're by definition not a good leader anymore (or not for that group of people - RMS can definitely create an FSF clone with people who accept him).

There's lots of leaders who love the status quo and organise people around it. No challenging needed. (for example priests being leaders for a small local community)

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by chii on Monday September 30, 2019 @08:47AM (#21114751)
a minority of followers didn't like what RMS did (from what i hear). Do we now aim to please every body, even if it means removing the awkward visionaries that would've otherwise have contributed more, and replace them with crowd-pleasing socialites that navigate people gracefully?
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by twelvechairs on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:27AM (#21113990)
There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which I can't disagree with more.

This isn't the followers saying "no, that's not ok", this is large institutions saying "no" on behalf of a vocal few.

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by viraptor on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:37AM (#21114097)
Mu. You asked if leader is defined by challenging things. I gave an alternative definition with an example of leaders not challenging things. (and sure, there are also those who do challenge) No-platforming is a completely different topic, and I have expressed no opinions about it.
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by sergioj97 on Monday September 30, 2019 @10:57AM (#21116023)
You didn't just give an example of a leader who doesn't challenge things. You literally stated that if a follower disagrees with the leader, then "by definition" he/she is not a good leader. You are implying that the definition of "leader" includes that you can't challenge things people may not find ok (disagree with).
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by twelvechairs on Monday September 30, 2019 @08:10AM (#21114399)
You haven't responded to my point here, this is just playing semantics and making me guess your definitions.

Despite how you are dancing around responses, from where I see it: You are clearly denying him a platform by saying he shouldnt be a 'leader' (ie. keep his posts). You are making that decision by institutions instead of individuals. You are holding all the worlds 'leaders' to your own moral views which is logically inconsistent.

Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by viraptor on Monday September 30, 2019 @08:44AM (#21114722)
You've made multiple assumptions about my opinions that I disagree with, and honestly it's too much work to unwind. I'd rather leave now.
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by twelvechairs on Monday September 30, 2019 @08:51AM (#21114778)
I'm trying here, but you just seem to do all you can to avoid debate and confuse discussion
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by tom_mellior on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:11AM (#21113850)
How would it be the point of a leader in free software to challenge the status quo that women are welcome in the workplace and in free software?
Re:In Defense of Richard Stallman by rusk on Monday September 30, 2019 @07:26AM (#21113981)
but but ... he was tolerated ... people were complaining about him for years ...