He might’ve been an influential figure, but he’s still a creep. Just because someone made something once doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye towards them.
> What’s most disturbing about this is how many of my friends and peers support Stallman’s removal. At first it was because they took the false accusations at face value. When I pointed out that these accusations were lies, they supported Stallman’s removal for other reasons. They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that he had a mattress in his office. (Apparently that’s where he often slept.) As far as I can tell, the worst allegations against Stallman involve him being a socially clueless aspie. He held his positions at MIT, GNU, and the FSF for over thirty years, and in that time nobody accused him of coercion, unwanted touching, or verbal harassment. If an occasional social gaffe or failed attempt at humor is all it takes to get thrown out on the street, nobody is safe.
the problem is a combination of being socially clueless but also being entirely unable to change because asking rms to change will escalate into an endless discussion about principles where he was always justified, no matter the topic, so people stopped trying at some point and went for plant defense[1] instead.
I believe the point of the article is that the personality that is resistant to change may be useful when this person believes in an idea (free software, privacy, etc). When they are confronted about the idea they will also not be willing to change. Then the ideas can develop themselves to become reality. Of course when this rigidity comes to social behavior this may be an issue.
To go a bit philosophical: I wonder if we can truly be rigid in some aspects and flexible in others. I guess this can be taught.
The article also clearly states "As far as I can tell, the worst allegations against Stallman involve him being a socially clueless aspie", which I believe matches your "he's still a creep". I tend to agree, he's not a socially well adjusted person. But did that really interfere with his work for the FSF? From what I can gather, he did a pretty good job at it :-/
Many brilliant people developed earlier unusual if not antisocial behaviour as a result of being estranged and often derided by others because of them being smarter. Or should we really dismiss all technical work by Leonardo Da Vinci because it was later revealed that he was a pedophile?
Stallman did nothing like that, he just made some comments everyone should avoid in today's new middle ages, yet he is treated like a criminal. He failed to realize there are snipers out there, possibly paid ones, waiting for the six lines that could make an argument for hanging him, and he gave them those six lines: that's his only fault.
The FOSS community will have to watch very closely who is going to benefit from his departure.
before someone goes into a defensive rage... rms being a creep and particularly women at MIT going to great lengths to avoid him is well documented
these remarks, while slightly distorted by the media, are still part of a pattern of dismissing sexual assault (including the way RMS insists on not using the word assault despite it being well understood that assault does not have to be physical violence)
rms is the sort of person who overshoots principled to a point everyone is tired of talking to them and where in-person criticism dies before it is even expressed because why bother with someone who will never seek to be better anyway and that afforded him a lot of leeway, even if i think the means of removing him now have been not entirely clean, it still was overdue
women at MIT going to great lengths to avoid him is well documented
Genuine question: where is this documented? I have been using GNU stuff for 25 years and until now have never heard about this. Do you have links to reputable sources?
So are weird polyamorous people who are into "cuddle puddles" committing sexual assault or something similar by advertising that fact?
It seems to me that Stallman advertising that he likes cuddles is automatically considered creepy, beyond the pale, whereas if a properly woke community of appropriately diverse individuals did the same, it would be just considered part of that culture and accepted.
What's more, Stallman used to be part of what that community used to be. He is a hippie. I bet people not up to speed on him reading about this incident assume he's an alt-righter who voted for Trump, but he supports Bernie Sanders, says that Australians should vote for the Greens, and advocates for weird gender-neutral pronouns.
And he likes cuddles and dared to advertise that fact!
I acknowledge that putting that on a business card is out of line in today's culture, but god I wish it wasn't. If you are creeped out by an old man wanting cuddles, but you wouldn't if it were someone else, then you are a bigot. And if you're creeped out any people at all advertising that they like cuddles, then that is stifling and the future is going to be bland and full of lonely people.
> before someone goes into a defensive rage... rms being a creep and particularly women at MIT going to great lengths to avoid him is well documented
I can't believe this hasn't been asked yet - if the allegations are founded, why didn't MIT do anything as his employer? They have a statutory obligation to provide a safe workplace.
I hate to be the one to draw the feminism card on HN because I know I'll attract a swarm of people that'll 'disagree' with me by shouting things at me, but that is called rape culture, and despite the confusing name, it is not solely about rape.
If that sounds hard to believe I can empathise, it took a personal anecdote for me to get and notice the spread of it too.
If you're wondering how one would be disincentivized, have a lot at how people react:
I don't know, there doesn't seem to be any documented instances of that I can find. Doesn't mean there wasn't any, but as I said, disincentives to reporting are high.
Are you... are you serious? Do you expect this to convince sane people? The disingenuousness on display in these threads is amazing.
"Maybe this is RMS's last-ditch effort to return to his glory days, when he could put abortion references in the documentation, and talk about virginity in his conference talks, and nobody would push back."
"I’m a CIS male and I’ve avoided GPL and every event he’s associated with in boston for over ten years because I didn’t like his macho-aggressive attitudes towards everything."
"If a women reports a FOSS hero, does anyone hear it?"
Oh, and for some reason pretty much everyone in these threads is either mistaken or deliberately lying about his recent comments about Minsky.
These people are trying to ruin someone's life and they're treating the entire thing like a joke.
I don't expect this to convince insane people. By which i mean you're insane. You take people using inclusive language as automatically dismissible. Clear sign I'm wasting my time.
>Oh, and for some reason pretty much everyone in these threads is either mistaken or deliberately lying about his recent comments about Minsky.
These threads are mostly dated 2018. The one tweet that isn't is referencing a talk from August. I don't know what you're talking about.
So, basically, exactly what the article says, a big nothing. The plants thing is stupid, rms doesn't hate plants. Sarah Mei appears to have no special reason to hate rms, shes a well known person who is extremely negative about anyone in software who's said anything offensive, including Linus, etc.
Well...
An anonymous source, from the internet, which itself had heard of this only through another party.
Dismissing unreliable sources like that is a safe default, no?
How is he a creep and what did he do to justify how he was treated? Did you read his comment about his defense of Marvin Lee Minsky? Precisely what was creepy or wrong about it?
1. What's your evidence? Where are these "documented" cases?
2. What incident are you referring to? His comments that led to his removal were about language and preciseness. Did you read his comment? Are you sure you know what the background/context is here?
Can you please read the thread yourself and point out to specific instances you are referring to? Because there is a lot of false information in this thread, like so:
> Last week, on a private MIT mailing list, Richard Stallman argued that a sex trafficking survivor may have "willingly" presented herself, and thus Minksey hadn't really committed sexual assault. That being coerced by Epstein made it not rape.
Which is flat out wrong, and something that the article here explicitly demonstrates why it's false. Did you read the "Defense of Richard Stallman" article presented here in this thread?
I read that thread before. The only "creep" I got out of it was that he was an awkward wannabe-dater.
And that thread contains misleading or outright false information, so I am honestly not sure what of it is truth-worthy. Do you have secondary sources, or is this internet rumor all?
