Richard Stallman has resigned from the Free Software Foundation and MIT

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: spayder26Actually he was not defending Epstein (he called him rapist), but declaring his opinion against laws against consented paedophilia, which is somewhat much more controversial.

You seem to have information differing from mine.

I read that he found the "most plausible scenario" that the girls have been "entirely willing".

Does anybody find it appropriate to do such talk about possible severe crimes without any knowledge of what actually has happened?

Just to add to my previous post: I know absolutely nothing about the above!

Quoting: namikoBeing "canceled" means being too offensive to work with, associate with or even to be spoken positively about at the worst.

Are some things so offensive as to make it necessary to remove someone from the public sphere, sometimes permanently? (banning, firing, refusing to associate with, maybe even being fined or arrested depending on where you live, etc.)

I don't know where the boundary on offense should be because I can't predict the future, times change, laws and policies also change in a waxing and waning of liberal to conservative and back again (in a general sense, no political parties implied). If this kind of de-personing is going to be the default, we're isolating a lot of people. There's a dark path to be gone down when we start thinking people are permanently irredeemable, even if they sincerely apologize. Or even if they are accepted again, can we say they're sincerely accepted, or is there a permanent, invisible "scarlet letter" of sorts that will hang over their heads indefinitely?

It feels good to be a part of a group that's "better" than the "bad" one(s), it's a rush that's probably chemically addictive. That's why I can't see "cancel culture" stopping anytime soon, it just feels too good to be more "right" than the person or group being accused.

If there's no road to forgiveness, can any of us honestly say that we're above reproach when it comes to our words or actions? Whether or not we think what Stallman's done or said is acceptable doesn't matter, it matters because we'd want a chance at forgiveness if we were in his shoes.

I think you have some great points. But at the same time I think this is a small piece of a very large unsolved puzzle.

I definitely think "canceling", as you defined it, is a social evil. Even if cancelled people would hypothetically all be "evil", for one, shunning them from society wouldn't make them disappear - they would still be causing problems the rest of us - thus not being a sustainable solution. Analogy should be made here to our prison systems. Reintegration is the answer ofc.

But on the other hand whose responsibility is it to educate and reform people that perform actions worthy of social condemnation? People who (usually unintentionally) invalidate or terrorize the existence of others? I think nobody wants to deal with that.
To give a (possibly insensitive) example: black people are often probably tired of educating people who are ignorant of some past atrocities and make some highly insensitive comments due to that. So black people try to ignore it and only when it becomes unbearably hideous do they speak out.

The phenomena of feeling superior due to being more right that you mentioned, might motivate some people, but in my speculation and in my experience that is very rare. Any "social justice warriors" or people demanding for "political correctness" are usually motivated by their internal sense of morality being highly alarmed by what is going on. I'm willing to believe that there are some who just like to shit on other for being in the wrong. And I'm willing to believe that there are many different motivations for behavior that can be put into the aforementioned groups, but in my admittedly limited experience I have not encountered insincere behavior thus far. But I'm 100% certain that exists.

I do really care a lot for reintegration of people who have made poor decisions and for social unity as a whole. But I think we shouldn't ignore the fact that despite this being almost always a sincere concern, there are also those who are just hiding their intentionally malign anti-societal behavior behind pretending to be a victim of some global mass movement of silencing and censorship. I do get it that some people sincerely feel this way.

All of this liberal-conservative conflict is a big mess of not enough communication and everyone being afraid of something and it being in no-one's direct interest to educate the other side about your fears and worries. And who would even want to do that with the lack of trust - maybe sharing my fears will be used against me by those evil evil internet trolls who get kicks out of harming others?

Quoting: wvstolzing

Quoting: NanobangHeadline:
Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'

What Stallman actually wrote:

Quoting: StallmanWe can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.

Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

Exactly this discrepancy has been bothering me since yesterday -- on THIS SPECIFIC POINT there does indeed seem to be a mischaracterization.

I agree... mostly. For some reason the word "mischaracterization" conjures up images of intent (or can do for some people). So I would add my assumption that the misinterpretation of Stallman's intent there is almost certainly accidental. I admit to having made the mistake of misreading that sentence (multiple times, no less!) myself:

actual:

Quote...that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.

actual meaning clarified:

Quote...that she pretended to be consenting.

I read:

Quote...that she presented herself to him entirely willingly.

I read meaning clarified:

Quote...that she was 100% super consenting to this.

I read implied:

Quote...people in sexual slavery can and do consent.

BAM - reason to be pissed that another person with significant power can say whatever-the-fuck-they-please about people going through suffering. How can they get away with shit like this? Why is no-one doing anything about this?"

Now imagine someone read this who has in general suffered a bit in the male-dominated ignorant world. Easy mistake to make, no? That said, it is sad that this outcome happened as a result of this seems-to-me-like-a-mistake-in-multiple-parts. Of course RMS could also have worded that bit much more clearly (takeaway lesson here). I haven't spent the necessary hours to get the full context here whether RMS is entirely innocent of socially horrible behavior or not and what should therefore ideally have happened and not have happened. But more trust (maybe sometimes?) and more empathy and more calming down and being friendly is what we all need.


Last edited by chr on 17 September 2019 at 12:40 pm UTC

It is not because some of the english-speaking newspaper have a terrible coverage of the issue that a professor who relativizes rape on a mailing list containing its student don't have to resign.
Even with plenty of bad faith, that part can't be defended.

Quote>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.

Then, he keeps going after a student ask him to stop. When he calms down and realizes what he has done, he was to resign.

Quoting: rustybroomhandleFor those rushing to RMS' defense. This is just one thing in a long list of things. For all the good he has done, it's really not the person that you should want as the face of free software.

Why not?

Can't we just have nice things? Why does it always have to be political, and not based only on technical merit?

On the other hand, the FSF is a political institution as well... :S:

Quoting: kaiman

QuoteWe can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

But even that lacks the context of the whole, without the original source, so take it with a grain of salt.

Are we talking about a 17-year-old girl and a 70+-year-old geezer? And this is supposed to be the "most plausible scenario" in RMS imagination? Yes, there might be cases where a young girl presents herself as willing under such circumstances. But I would call them "most implausible".

Quoting: MayeulCCan't we just have nice things? Why does it always have to be political, and not based only on technical merit?

Welcome to the world of code of conduct.

The e-mails have leaked, anyone can take a peak and read what has really be written in it. Better than reading stuff from some journalist that will turn him in either a hero or a devil - he is neither-.

That guy was going to fall one day or another, he writes stupid mail like that on a regular basis. He totally misjudged the crisis where the MIT is and that, this time, it was the one too much.

The stuff at the MIT show is lack on public relation. He can be a programmer in the FSF but he can't be president. I rather have someone better at representing free software. That will let good ol' Stallman plenty of time to finish Hurd.

Sometimes, it's better to keep your mouth shut and 'follow the flow' than say something that will stirring up many hornet nests.

That's my motto of life, even do it sound's hypocritical.
Because at the end of the day, "Saya mahu terus hidup".

Quoting: kaimanPersonally, I really wonder though how people can hang Stallman for his words, while nobody so much raises an eyebrow at the way Epstein's case was handled by the legal system. Makes me think priorities aren't what they ought to be these days.

Have you been on the Internet in the past couple months? Because everyone's pretty unhappy about Epstein's murder suicide. Everyone knows it was a coverup is totally a legit suicide.

Sarcasm off now, quit the bullshit. People being pissed about Epstein doesn't mean they can't be pissed about RMS writing apologetics for rapists. People in sexual slavery are incapable of consent. Underage people are legally incapable of consent. Whether the sex slave is being forced to pretend to consent or not doesn't matter, it's still immoral, it's still unethical, it's still a crime.

Quoting: namikoBeing "canceled" means being too offensive to work with, associate with or even to be spoken positively about at the worst.

Are some things so offensive as to make it necessary to remove someone from the public sphere, sometimes permanently? (banning, firing, refusing to associate with, maybe even being fined or arrested depending on where you live, etc.)

I don't know where the boundary on offense should be because I can't predict the future, times change, laws and policies also change in a waxing and waning of liberal to conservative and back again (in a general sense, no political parties implied). If this kind of de-personing is going to be the default, we're isolating a lot of people. There's a dark path to be gone down when we start thinking people are permanently irredeemable, even if they sincerely apologize. Or even if they are accepted again, can we say they're sincerely accepted, or is there a permanent, invisible "scarlet letter" of sorts that will hang over their heads indefinitely?

It feels good to be a part of a group that's "better" than the "bad" one(s), it's a rush that's probably chemically addictive. That's why I can't see "cancel culture" stopping anytime soon, it just feels too good to be more "right" than the person or group being accused.

If there's no road to forgiveness, can any of us honestly say that we're above reproach when it comes to our words or actions? Whether or not we think what Stallman's done or said is acceptable doesn't matter, it matters because we'd want a chance at forgiveness if we were in his shoes.

This is pretty much what I wanted to say, but couldn't find the right words for it. Thanks :)

Quoting: chrBut more trust (maybe sometimes?) and more empathy and more calming down and being friendly is what we all need.

THIS :)


Last edited by Arehandoro on 17 September 2019 at 4:31 pm UTC

Quoting: GuestHow will this affect Linux gaming in the long run?

No effect as RMS condemned non-free software which most games are.

Well, as others wrote, another victim of cancel culture. Sadly, it has become a norm, we live in an age of Code Of Conducts which are crafted and pushed through not to improve work/community relations, but only to ostracize people with opposing opinions (often political ones). Where are the times when it would make it headlines if some (semi) public figure was banned from social network or kicked from work because of politely stating facts - as in based on science, not feelings or opinions. If you don't believe me, just search for James Damore and read his memo (I believe there was also a famous evolutionary biologist kicked out from university, because he dared to voice to press a scientific fact accepted by overwhelming majority of scientists in the field; or an ex-muslim kicked from twitter because he quoted the holy book).

Quoting: Liam Dawethe comments can be closed at any time.

Yeah, threatening to closing discussion, because someone can't handle opposing views (like at the Ion Fury article)? When you want a civilized discussion/community, why not just censor naughty words, if it becomes heated, instead of ruining it for everybody? ?

It is interesting, looking back in time, I realize I gradually stopped reading all news portals which started censoring opinions they disagreed with or removing discussions entirely. I guess it's probably because there are many times when comments are as, or even more, useful than the article itself (e.g. pointing out factual errors or biases, updates to the news, links to other sources if a reader wants to educate himself on the topic).

RMS has long suffered from the 'you can be technically correct, and yet still act like a raging asshole about it' syndrome that Linus Torvalds, etc. also suffer from.

I don't like how media outlets have basically stretched and almost misquoted him in their headlines, because it makes it all sound like this is the only mis-step he's made over the years in this area. If that were the case, you'd not be wrong to be at least a little upset that this seems like a disproportionate reaction.

But that's the thing - in reality, this is more 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. RMS has been problematic for years, but the Epstein <-> MIT link was the kick at the end.

You can probably dig deeper if you're so inclined (here's one place to start - where Vice got their info.

I wish the FSF best of luck in finding someone new to champion their cause.


Last edited by Kithop on 17 September 2019 at 4:53 pm UTC

I'm absolutely baffled how many people here in the comments simply accept shitty social rules as if they should not be different. One is to be silent about a topic that is controversial? Well... the situation is this: What is controversial is contemporary and changes all the time.

We shouldn't use the age of information to hold this info against each other. That's really the worst way to handle the new world and the new international networked society. It is not useful to discredit opinion A about topic X because the same person had opinion B about topic Y. We are blogging, chatting, posting, commenting and so on all the time. But as soon as we have as bigger amount of followers or have a managing or leading position, we have to be even more silent about topics?

Do leaders of countries have to be almost silent about almost anything, then? Of course not. Because then they would just be mouth pieces of the public opinion because they want to get re-elected.

People can't seriously think that this is acceptable or even to be defended. It should be gotten rid of.

Also... I'm absolutely not happy about the GNOME Foundation pulling such an publicity stunt. GNOME originates from the GNU project in the past, and the leader of GNOME reads a fucking VICE article for the latest news on RMS?

Quoting: monnef

Quoting: Liam Dawethe comments can be closed at any time.

Yeah, threatening to closing discussion, because someone can't handle opposing views (like at the Ion Fury article)? When you want a civilized discussion/community, why not just censor naughty words, if it becomes heated, instead of ruining it for everybody? ?

It is interesting, looking back in time, I realize I gradually stopped reading all news portals which started censoring opinions they disagreed with or removing discussions entirely. I guess it's probably because there are many times when comments are as, or even more, useful than the article itself (e.g. pointing out factual errors or biases, updates to the news, links to other sources if a reader wants to educate himself on the topic).

It has absolutely nothing to do with opposing views. It's about people having respect, once people start losing that and going wild, comments can be closed or offending users posts removed. If people follow our rules, there's no issue.

As I've said for a long time, opposing views are welcome. Respect however, has to be shown to fellow readers.

For pointing out corrections, we have a dedicated bit above comments in a very defined box for people to use any time.


Last edited by Liam Dawe on 17 September 2019 at 5:12 pm UTC

Quoting: Doc AngeloDo leaders of countries have to be almost silent about almost anything, then? Of course not. Because then they would just be mouth pieces of the public opinion because they want to get re-elected.

... my sarcasm detector is beeping. :D

Kind of off-topic here, but I mean, 'mouth pieces of the public opinion because they want to get re-elected' is pretty much modus operandi for politics, isn't it?

Also, I'm a bit confused here, on 'shitty social rules'. The social rules that say it's okay for men in power to make sexist, homophobic, etc. jokes while at the office, surrounded not only by their straight male peers, but women, etc. who are supposed to smile and nod lest they lose their jobs for speaking out? 'Cause I'm totally fine with getting rid of those - those have held us back ever since men took over 'computer programming' and turned it into 'software engineering' and pushed women (perfectly smart, trained, capable women!) out of the field in droves. And we wonder why it's so hard to get women back into STEM - it's certainly not a lack of interest in the subject fields...

If you're the spokesperson for an organization, be it a non-profit or a C-level exec of a megacorporation, the opinions you air in public reflect on that organization, no matter how much you try to qualify it as personal vs. professional. That's part of being a public figure and spokesperson. Yeah, it sucks, and you should be able to have a private forum to discuss things. A mailing list to a large chunk of staff isn't that private forum.

Quoting: Liam DaweIt has absolutely nothing to do with opposing views. It's about people having respect, once people start losing that and going wild, comments can be closed or offending users posts removed. If people follow our rules, there's no issue.

As I've said for a long time, opposing views are welcome. Respect however, has to be shown to fellow readers.

Respect for a person is earned, not freely given. I will try to be polite, respect other's opinions, but I will not implicitly respect them, revere them.

Why preemptively disable comment sections then? I can only conclude from your actions that it was clear to you that your article was biased, you found your opinion morally superior (which is of course strongly subjective and likely to change with age, yours or in general) and you closed comments section to censor opposing views. I simply viewed it as "My position is so weak, my arguments are not fact-based, so they cannot withstand a rational discussion, a public scrutiny, so I choose to silence my opposition.".

So, if my opinion, which is not targeted at an individual user, on an arbitrary term X would be that "they should have no extra rights because of X", "they should not be (even 'positively') discriminated" or "I view X as a mental illness", would my comment not be censored? I would be merely stating my view, my opinion, wouldn't I?

Quoting: Liam DaweFor pointing out corrections, we have a dedicated bit above comments in a very defined box for people to use any time.

Which when comments are closed will see only staff, and only after some time (comments are instant), and only if staff deems it necessary and have time a correction will be added. Also that does not address the other reasons for comments I listed.

PS: It's entirely possible I misunderstood something (e.g. the respect part), English is not my native language after all.