Turned on? Stallman just didn't learn, despite decades of people trying to convince him, that his behavior was counter to his very cause. His overt misogyny created barriers to free software development where there needn't be any - who wants to go into the office that has "knight for hot ladies" pasted on the door? All of that behavior is being addressed directly now and people aren't going to put up with it.
RMS quirky as fuck. More than anything it's a shame he just couldn't pick up on that one social skill.
> Stallman has made many posts sympathizing with efforts to legalize some forms of child pornography. Among other things, they stated that he was "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children". These comments were defended by his supporters on Slashdot. As of 2016, there are reports of Stallman changing his views on the matter within the previous few years.[2] However, in 2018 he defended Cody Wilson, who later pled guilty to sex with an underage girl, with Stallman saying that the girl likely had "entirely willing sex with him." Stallman changed his original post but nevertheless still said it is "normal for adults to be physically attracted to adolescents" and that adults using trafficked children shouldn't be legally responsible. In 2019, Stallman posted an email to an MIT listserv about the allegation that MIT professor Marvin Minsky raped a 17-year-old girl, and due to public outcry he resigned from both MIT and the Free Software Foundation.
> For many years, Richard has been doing a schtick about "St. Ignutius" that involves Sexist humor. His performance of this shtick in July 2009 sparked the EMACS virgins joke incident.
> The "St. Ignutius" routine mentioned above has been performed relatively unchanged since the early 90s, as a commenter recounts on a blog post about the EMACS virgins joke. The commenter writes about seeing the routine when she was only 15, and how RMS singled her out several times during that performance:
> He actually pointed to me in the back and proclaimed, into the mic, "A GIRL!" causing the audience to turn and look. Mortifying. Then he proceeded to gesture toward me every time he referred to "EMACS Virgins." (I cannot believe that he is still doing the same talk 10+ years later.)
Do you have any empathy for how it would feel as a 15 year old girl surrounded by dudes to be in this position?
> In a 2007 interview, he said:
I don’t have any experience working with women in programming projects; I don’t think that any volunteered to work on Emacs or GCC.
A number of women have contributed to GCC, including:
Janis Johnson maintains the test suite and has been a contributor since 2001
Sandra Loosemore is the lead author of the GNU Library Reference Manual;[3] RMS is listed as her co-author.
Dorit Nuzman made major contributions to loop scheduling and vectorization.
Carolyn Tice is also mentioned as a contributor.
Are you serious? What an absurd, unfair, bad faith characterization. I would expect comments like that on reddit or twitter, not here.
You may have recongized the joke. Women at MIT expressed their displeasure with that and other things RMS had done.
Do you believe those women's feelings were valid? Simple yes or no question that basically indicates whether you have empathy for people looking for inclusivity in the tech scene.
> you're a fucking wazzock
Can you please at the very least read the HN rules? You're coming onto this forum, it's pretty fucking rude to shit in it as you are doing.
Me, too. But I suppose, you are also not a women struggeling in a sexist nerd IT world? (and after hearing some storys it is not clear to me, if it really is a full joke)
So I can understand, that women are offended by it. Also, the sign is by far not the only thing, people were offended by him.
In any case, RMS effectively got dismissed because of an email on a university-internal mailing list where he tried to defend the honor of a dead friend and colleague in a way that seemed appropriate to him at the time. But the wording triggered the attention of some overly sensitive SJW who decided it's a good enough offence to retaliate against using all the social media power that she could muster.
The "hot ladies" stuff was tacked on later to try to justify the dismissal, as if it's not just the bad (but loud) media coverage that was the actual reason.
You're not being very charitable here -- all the stuff that got tacked on was the answer to whether this was an isolated incident or not.
Stallman's personal views are something that people involved in Free Software have been trying for years to downplay and sweep under the rug because RMS is Free Software to a large extent and every part of him affects people's image of the surrounding work.
I love Free Software and I contribute a lot of code. I hope that RMS the archetype lives on in the mission of the FSF but that the grittier reality fades.
What was an isolated incident? Sharing his opinions over email? Certainly not.
Of course I'm not being charitable: the armchair warriors have tried (and, to a large extent, succeeded) to destroy the reputation of a man who we all, collectively, owe a lot to.
Regarding the views, I hardly think that being picky about the semantics of the word "assault" is significant enough grounds for dismissal, and for the whole media outrage that happened.
Nobody really tried "to downplay" his views because they are largely irrelevant to the work that FSF was and is doing. So they stayed as they were: personal views. The most frowned-upon of which he publicly renounced on his personal blog around the time the scandal broke out.
I don't think anybody is interested in "destroying RMS' reputation." I think women are tired of men getting a pass for misogyny simply because they have great contributions. It just doesn't make up for their behavior.
If anybody argues that his name should be struck from history, I'll argue against them. But he shouldn't be employed by MIT.
But this lady has her audience, and she's pushing the right buttons.
Personally, I care little what happens at MIT, but when it comes to FSF, this has gone way too far. Fire the whole board because of an email thread? Really?
> Fire the whole board because of an email thread? Really?
It's obvious from any charitable reading of that Twitter thread that Sarah Mei's concerns aren't merely "an email thread," absent any other context.
If you object to her actual concerns - that the FSF appears unsympathetic to the victims of harassment, unwilling to apologize for Stallman's behavior, and incapable of expressing a plan to move forward with more progressive policies, then say so. But to purposely misconstrue people's motives in an attempt to make their concerns seem absurd is disingenuous. This isn't about the email thread, it's about the culture and attitudes the email thread represents, and how people would rather excuse RMS' bad behavior rather than confront it in any meaningful way, because they care more about protecting Free Software and its Prophet than the effect RMS has on people, and on the reputation of the FSF, however harmful.
Part of the reputation that RMS built for himself is as a serial harasser with no grasp of the concept of consent. It's a legitimate concern that the FSF seems unconcerned about addressing that part of his legacy.
Where was that charitable reading when the original accusation occurred?
> that the FSF appears unsympathetic to the victims of harassment, unwilling to apologize for Stallman's behavior
You are repeating all that stuff as if it's a known fact, and not the rumors and conjecture that it is.
> how people would rather excuse RMS' bad behavior rather than confront it in any meaningful way
And here you are also regurgitating the arguments that Sarah Mei and similar orators have provided.
People are writing excuses (at least some do) because the punishment has already far exceeded the alleged crime. Don't you think so?
> Part of the reputation that RMS built for himself is as a serial harasser
Same here. What reputation? Irrespective of the truth in these claims, most people around these discussions are only hearing about this supposed "reputation" now.
Now, FSF could issue an apology, but a) they have probably as little ability to verify these claims as you and I, b) issuing that apology independent of Richard would give credence to these claims, and given that there are few actual accusers it would basically have to agree with all the stuff that has been claimed, by whoever, recently. Which would be a significant betrayal on their part.
A good PR person could issue a trustworthy-sounding promise/non-apology, but FSF are mostly techies, so I'm not holding my breath. But it would be a good idea, politically-speaking.
If you are concerned about actual people is this discussion, though, and are looking for a change in policy, then it, again, will need concrete firsthand accounts and detailed explanations (conveyed to FSF in private, at least). Because a good policy can't be built on vague accusations.
"So you meant the event where he tried to defend his deceased colleague?"
Yes, that is what I mean. Because for some weird reason, women are sensitive to women being sexually exploited. And the Epstein topic is loaded.
It is not about that he defended him, it is about how.
And Epstein was convicted before.
"He was convicted of only these two crimes as part of a plea deal; federal officials had in fact identified 36 girls, some as young as 14 years old, whom Epstein had sexually abused"
Minsky did associate with him nevertheless. So whether there actually was sex or not ... if RMS says the most plausible sitution was that the women was "entirely willingly" .. is insensitive and stupid at least.
Because every sex abuser says the victim was willing. So if RMS uses then this exact argument, of course that triggers and backfires.
> It is not about that he defended him, it is about how.
He didn't defend Epstein. Quite the opposite.
> Minsky did associate with him nevertheless.
Apparently, so did many, many other people. Very few of which have somehow been mentioned in this scandal.
Anyway, that is obviously reaching. Simply being in the vicinity of a known convict is not a reason for having a career destroyed. And Stallman himself wasn't there.
> is insensitive and stupid at least
Yes, well. It was. It doesn't mean that the following witch hunt was justified. People are entitled to being stupid somtimes.
> Because every sex abuser says the victim was willing.
Imagine yourself in a position where someone is saying your good friend of decades is a rapist. And there's some evidence that intercourse happened, but the details are unknown. And the friend is unable to defend himself. Would you keep silent?
And together with it there was an Amnesty International sticker.
So it really depends on what people want to see, more than what's really there.
I've seen much worse sign, like professors not receiving at their office even if they were required to, posting signs with the new address where you could find them (usually their private studio office)
And they only received if it was "really needed" otherwise you just sent an email and waited.
That's what made me really furious when I was a student.
Women were more concerned that they traveled 100kms from their home towns to meet the professor and talk about their thesis and finding their door shut, not of some stupid signs that was clearly a joke made by someone who wasn't a threat to anybody.
The real threat came from the polite, well dressed, highly educated, power angry monsters, those like Epstein.
Stallman is the exact opposite of that kind of men.
> But he defended someone who associated with Epstein and who had sex with an underage girl, he got from Epstein.
He did not.
I think it's time to cut with the BS!
- according to the sources Minsky never had sex with the girl, if you have proof of the contrary, please provide them
- Stallman was not defending Minsky, in fact he even assumed the sex happened, he was arguing against using the term "sexual assault" because its legal definition is very different from the everyday connotation
But I found something I think you might enjoy.
I found someone who probably nailed it
How about, if the old person would be mick jagger? I could imagine, he still has his charms to some. Also I have seen young attractive women aproaching old yoga gurus for example ..
But yeah, the old guy wasn't mick jagger, nor a yoga master and at best he did assume the girl was a 18+ old prostitue doing it willingly for money and power
I also know that I have written, that I did not know many details about the case or the witch hunt in general as it was a witch hunt, in which both sides were wildly throwing accusations around and I found it hard to find actual facts. And that seemes to be still he case.
Now apparently I misunderstood the comment about the sign being tacked later on, but how do you know Minsky turned her down?
Please buy yourself a dictionary. Misogyny is nowhere near the claims presented in the story or the follow-ups.
And no, simply being an awkward nerd (whether that happened or not), or "being a creep" how some people called it, does not automatically mean being misogynystic. One has to be aggressive or malicious for that.
Because I feel like willful mislabeling things for emotional effect is what got us in this situation. Remember the contents of the original email: it was pointing out that "child rape" was not a good description of the event that supposedly took place (as it was thought at the time). And I happen to agree with that distinction, no matter how tone-deaf it might have sounded.
> I understand if you feel strongly about this, but personal snipes aren't cool, and don't feel nice to receive.
Please understand that you repeat an unfair accusation against a person that contributed quite a lot to our society. And who got hurt profusely by similar accusations already.
> Do you believe that the women who have come out and said RMS' behavior made them uncomfortable feelings are invalid?
Which women, though? I've only seen one personal account so far, and it accused him of staring at her cleavage for a while. Which is rude, of course, but by itself, as one instance, does not justify the whole shebang. Especially when you consider how many years him career spanned, and how many people he must have met during that time (where are all the others?).
The rest was a few rumors like "I heard people say things about him in my class of '95", which is very hard to verify, as well as apologize to someone. How old were you in 1995? I was 9.
From what I've seen, Richard is a polite guy, or at least tries to be, so if there were actual faces to go with the accusations, I'm pretty sure he'd write the apology himself.
"it was pointing out that "child rape" was not a good description of the event that supposedly took place (as it was thought at the time). And I happen to agree with that distinction, no matter how tone-deaf it might have sounded."
No.
It was more than that. Stop downplaying, if you want to be taken seriously. But I stop repeating myself.
Well, many people described RMS as a creep. And when the accusations are true, that for example he told women they should date him or he kills himself, than that is valid.
He openly advocated against criminalization of pädophiles. That gets you the term pedo, even though not fair, it is playing with fire.
And if it was indeed a case rape, in the sense of exploitation of a minor by minsky, who felt the rush of lust, which the other sides asume, than he is a rape apologist, if he says the most likeley scenario is, that she presented her as "willing", as this is, like I said, the common rape defence.
But like I said, I allmost don't know any actual facts, except that the whole discussion was horrible, as most people did not know nor wanted to know facts, before judging.
> Well, many people described RMS as a creep. And when the accusations are true, that for example he told women they should date him or he kills himself, than that is valid.
If.
And was it "women" or "a woman"? Once? Maybe, like, 30-40 years ago? If happened, it was a shitty thing to do, but it shouldn't have any effect on a person's life decades later.
Maybe consider the whole span of his career before readily accepting 3-4 vague rumors as something really damning.
> He openly advocated against criminalization of pädophiles. That gets you the term pedo, even though not fair, it is playing with fire.
True. But that's been known for years. And stating one's opinion once on a personal blog is not a crime.
> But like I said, I allmost don't know any actual facts, except that the whole discussion was horrible, as most people did not know nor wanted to know facts, before judging.
It's unfair to conclude "everybody behaved badly" and shrug when only one side is paying the price.
Espesially since the choice to move the "discourse" to the social media plaforms (inhabited by very different people) has been made by the original accuser.
It was a guess. And not an entirely implausible one.
Yes, apparently some people have an extremely emotional reaction to seeing the word "willing" anywhere near the topic of sexual exploitation, but that's not a good enough reason to break out the torches full-on. Especially in an academic environment (where people are supposed to be able to think first).
> But I suppose, you are also not a women struggeling in a sexist nerd IT world?
I'm not a woman, I'm also not a sexist nerd.
And I know, having been a supporter of the free software since the mid 90s, having interacted with the first Luther Blisset group in Italy, having tried to build an Italian Linux distro in 1996 and been part in the hack community (I've been among the first to build and attend hack meetings conventions in Italy, you can read more about the first one here http://www.ecn.org/hackit98/faq.html), that I've never met more women in tech than in the FSF circles.
There were literally no women in tech back then, but there were more than a few of them interested in being part of a socio-political revolutionary platform such as the free software philosophy.
I've personally taught a group of girls howto install Linux so they could teach to other people in the free Linux courses we gave in many community centers, back when Linux meant Slackware 1.0 (1.0.1 to be correct) and kernel 1.2.13.
I've been a teacher for Rails girls whose motto is "Our aim is to give tools and a community for women to understand technology and to build their ideas"
Because RMS and all the guys like him believed in inclusiveness and I believed it too, thanks to them.
Nope! Current GNOME foundation board has one RedHat employee, out of six people. RedHat contributes a lot to the project, because they are one of few companies making a desktop distro with serious resources behind it. (That, and RedHat understands open source enough that they see collaborating upstream as a net benefit). But GNOME is its own thing, and always has been, built by contributions from all sorts of places.
Let's use up the news momentum to give GNOME (more) resources to bury these fuckers.