[jaxbot]

It also wasn't in isolation; he made very similar remarks in 2006 on his blog that he got flak for, but people mostly brushed aside as 'oh, Stallman..'

Comments here seem to mostly equate this situation to a Cancel Culture outcry over an isolated remark. That's not what happened here. rms has had decades of inexcusable behavior for any individual, much less someone affiliated with MIT and heading something as large as FSF. He had to answer for this eventually.

I sincerely appreciate his contributions to this world. But I also sincerely feel that we can't give people free passes for their behavior (see: courtesy cards at conferences) just because they've done well in other respects. We need to end the acceptance of Brilliant Jerks.

[freedomben]

I think I mostly agree with you, but what should happen to people with "inexcusable behavior?" should they be fired once? Should they be unemployable for all time? Is justice served after decades of living in a gutter? When we react with outrage mob justice we make people toxic to all future employers. It's extremely hard to ever rebuild your life, especially now where everything on the internet lives forever. I agree that we need to turn around acceptance of "brilliant jerks" but the Law of Unintended Consequence here in many cases seems way worse than the original problem we were trying to solve.

[KirinDave]

RMS is not going to have a problem finding employment in six months or so. He's just going to have to spend some time demonstrating he's not a sexist liability before he can take leadership positions again.

That seems reasonable and fair.

> I agree that we need to turn around acceptance of "brilliant jerks" but the Law of Unintended Consequence here in many cases seems way worse than the original problem we were trying to solve.

Which is... what exactly? You're appealing to a slippery slope but from my perspective we climbed UP said slope to get to holding RMS to account for years of bad behavior, and even now reprehensible folks are using awful excuses like, "They're just on the spectrum" as ammo in the "Yes but he's a powerful man" argument they've been winning for a long time.

[seanmcdirmid]

RMS is unemployable at this point. He is also 66, so he could just retire as an option.

[misterdoubt]

Judging from the balance in this thread I'd say he's still extremely employable.

[seanmcdirmid]

Defending someone’s speech rights (no matter how horrible the speech is) is very different from wanting to work with someone.

[KirinDave]

There are no applicable speech rights in a legal sense within RMS's personal scope, so I'm skeptical of this intent.

[shadowgovt]

His expertise is software development and the open source world. he can make contributions as long as he is able to swing a patch against a git repository.

That doesn't imply any institution of higher learning or software advocacy organization needs to grant him their imprimatur to do it.

[jackbravo]

Why is he unemployable?

[javagram]

RMS hasn’t had a paid job as a programmer for 40 years as far as I know. People say he was homeless and living in his office at MIT while working on GNU in the 80s.

Isn’t he basically a speaker and advocate nowadays? That career is unlikely to be very successful now that all major organizations dumped him and he has fake news headlines saying he defended Epstein following him everywhere (backed up by apparently two decades of known antisocial personal behavior).

He doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of person you’d hire to work as a normal developer nor would that comport with his strange ethics of refusing to use any non-Free software.

[seanmcdirmid]

He was in a leadership position for a long time while also having very poor soft skills. His value was primarily symbolic, and that symbolism has been pretty much destroyed at this point.

He could try to rebuild his career, but he is 66 so unlikely he will try.

[nanoanon]

This is the sad truth of the times we live in. You garner an audience, and then you exhibit an opinion that is controversial then well, you shall be promptly destroyed. And these things need not happen now. You garner an audience at any point in the future and your online presence will be decompiled, diagnosed for bugs, and all errors will be promptly ostracized by the armchair armada of online experts. This is the age that the internet lurker is now the commentator, the internet commentator is now the journalist, and the journalist is now the lawyer. Your livelihood now at the mercy of any and all denizens, including bots, though they only give 3/5s the upvote.

[mikeash]

What should happen is that he should either find an employer who will tolerate his inexcusable behavior, go into business for himself, or learn to shut the hell up at work.

We don’t need to worry about his entire life. That’s his job. We can say “this person clearly should not be leading an advocacy group” without figuring out a whole future career path for him.

[electricviolet]

Of course they should still be able to live a good life, but they should certainly not be able to hold a position of power over the people who their opinions are offensive towards and still be allowed to express those opinions.

[JshWright]

> I think I mostly agree with you, but what should happen to people with "inexcusable behavior?"

They certainly _shouldn't_ be in a leadership position... (where that "inexcusable behavior" becomes a barrier to participation for various groups)

[RandomTisk]

Let me guess, you and your friends alone get to decide what "inexcusable behavior", "barrier" and "various groups" means right?

[JshWright]

I don't think it's terribly controversial to say that someone who has a history of making inappropriate comments about women would make it less likely that women would be interested in participating in an organization where that person is in leadership. Do you disagree?

[colechristensen]

Definitely RMS should be unemployable in any position which would involve public prominence, leadership, or significant influence. After a decent amount of time if he makes a believable atonement perhaps some return would be possible.

[mr_spothawk]

maybe people think you "should be unemployable in any position which would involve public prominence, leadership, or significant influence."

are you even thinking about what you're writing? it seems like you're just attacking for the sake of it.

you've spammed this conversation with your input... what, 20 different times?

[mangodwango]

His Behavior being commenting or having opinions on things we don’t agree with? I think he should be able to say whatever he wants, and further that in this instance his comments have been taken wildly out of context.

I hate this morality police sweeping in saying that he simply can’t talk about this because it is forbidden, wrong, etc. The majority should not decide what is ok speech or thought, we should judge him by what he has actually done, and challenge his thoughts directly with reasoned argument rather than immediately dismiss and denounce anything that isn’t in the moral majority.

[roguecoder]

Yeah, you can’t excuse pedophilia in decent society because it puts kids at risk. Legally you can say whatever you want, but legally no one has to employ you when you do.

Freedom of association is just as important at freedom of speech.

[SmirkingRevenge]

To be somewhat pedantic here (though not really, because this is an important distinction and its important not to mislabel people or their actions in these kinds of matters)... pedophilia is a sexual attraction oriented at pre-pubescent children (think Michael Jackson).

All acts of pedophilia would be statutory rape, but not all statutory rape would be acts of pedophilia. If the minor isn't a pre-pubescent child, it really isn't pedophilia.

[mangodwango]

Except he didn’t excuse it, he said rape transcends age of consent laws which are dependent entirely on jurisdiction. Do you disagree with that? He may have phrased it in an unfortunate way, but that is how I parsed it.

[roguecoder]

The number of people in this thread defending statutory rape just demonstrates why it is important not to accommodate statements like his.

[johnea]

When my parents got married, my mom was 17 and my dad was 19.

Is my dad a rapist?

[mr_spothawk]

Can you be a bit more clear about what "defending statutory rape" means to you?

All i'm seeing is people pointing out that statutes are different around the globe, and that it was rms' point that the variety of these rules is the exact reason not to refer to minsky's behavior (whatever it was) as "assault".

[freedomben]

I agree regarding freedom of association and its importance. But, are you ok then condemning people to homelessness and poverty? It sure seems to me like you are viewing that as a perfectly acceptable punishment for saying something unacceptable.

[roguecoder]

That is a straw man argument. I don’t have a cushy gig at MIT, but that doesn’t mean I am condemned to homelessness and poverty.

He was in two roles that were largely about PR and put him in positions of power over young women. I certainly am willing to condemn people to no longer holding positions of power they have demonstrated they will abuse, and if your job is as a figurehead a big part of that job is not being so gross people avoid the institution. He got fired because a significant part of his job was ensuring the fsf could raise funds and he was being bad at his job.

[mr_spothawk]

> He was in two roles that were largely about PR and put him in positions of power over young women.

1st, you're assuming his relative power based on claims in an article by a young woman who didn't know about him, and still hasn't met him.

2nd, the least old of these claims was written 13 years ago.

3rd, for god's sake... he wasn't defending pedophilia. there's no reason to say that! why on earth do people keep repeating it? it's clearly inaccurate.

[C4stor]

I think that's one of the only sane comment around there, not thinking in a vacuum. Thank you :-)

[vertex-four]

As a society, we should ensure there are processes to ensure nobody is condemned to homelessness and poverty. As individuals, none of us have to interact with people we don't want to. We could, for example, build reasonable welfare systems and pay people to administer them - or any number of other mechanisms.

[glenda]

There is no rule that states that a person should be free to say anything without any consequences.

He made a choice to say some words and based on those words people felt they would be better off without him in their workplace. Seems fair to me, people have been fired for much less.

[magduf]

For better or worse, that's how societies work. They're composed of individuals who do things based on their own values.

Suppose you're an employer. Would you want to hire a neo-Nazi who has visible swastika and Hitler tattoos? Would you put this guy in front of your customers? Probably not; your business wouldn't do too well. So when you decline to hire such a person, you're exercising your freedom of association, but also helping to condemn the neo-Nazi to homelessness and poverty. In some countries, he might be able to get some social assistance so he doesn't turn to crime, but it'll probably still be poverty-level.

Societies aren't just a bunch of people all doing and saying whatever the heck they want. There's consequences to your actions and your speech. If people like you more, you get better jobs and do better socially. If people don't like you, then you become an outcast. This can be good or bad: if the overall attitude is something awful, such as the idea that some people should be enslaved, then you get a society where lots of people are horribly oppressed. If the overall attitude however is that oppression is bad, then people who promote oppression (like neo-Nazis) are punished by being ostracized, and ideas like that are made unpopular and kept from spreading too much.

[jgwil2]

Being fired or pressured to resign from a prominent, public position because of something you say is not a free speech issue. You can say whatever you want as a private citizen, but as an employee of an organization you are held to different standards.

[frabbit]

Would you be saying that if an advocate for gay marriage, abortion, trans-gender rights etc were being forced to resign from a leadership position at Chic-Fil-A ?

[brorfred]

An advocate for gay marriage, abortion, trans-gender rights etc would never have a leadership position at Chic-Fil-A and would be fired in a heartbeat if they came out with such opinions. A anti-gun advocate would not be allowed to sweep the floors at the NRA. A vegan would never be allowed to do PR for a meat plant.

[jgwil2]

The point is taken, but in this case we're not even talking about something that is a partisan issue. We're talking about excusing or justifying sexual predation.

[frabbit]

I'm not sure that that's what rms did.

This Guardian article makes me think that he has been unfairly treated. Even though I think that he is completely wrong to assume that an elderly man could reasonably expect that a very young person is having sex with them for any reason other than either direct coercion (violence, mental-abuse/gaslighting) or the indirect violence of capitalism (need to support self or family [1]).

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/17/mit-scient...

I think it is quite clear that he was explicitly NOT claiming that the accusor was willing, but that she was coerced into appearing willing. I think it is quite clear that he also calls for more care and clarity in the language around this and the post on Medium gets it completely wrong, as does your last phrase.

1. This can include drug dependency, can also include the need to pay for "luxuries" like going to college: it's pretty much all the same to me -- these things are withheld due to force in our society. The picture is even clearer in the extreme case of "voluntary" sex work by people in developing countries.

There are a lot of similarly coerced situations in our capitalist societies. You want to eat? Go down the mine.

[alanh]

It’s an innocent typo, but nevertheless I am amused by imagining Chic-Fil-A as a super upscale, urban, on-trend, exclusive version of Chick-Fil-A where models instragram themselves pretending to eat

[mr_spothawk]

This is probably the most important message that any of us could be communicating to the Cancel Culture crew.

Thanks for putting it so succintly

[bairrd]

There's a difference between holding diverging opinions, and defending someone who had sex with a sex trafficed minor, right? If we don't uphold at least that as a society, what are we?

[TeMPOraL]

Who was accused of having sex with a sex trafficked minor. Stallman only pointed out that the Minsky may have not known about the trafficking angle, but apparently there's witness testimony saying the act of sex never happened.

I get that the concept of assumption of innocence is something long-forgotten on the Internet, but can we at least discern between correcting the language to ensure that mob accusations are accurate, and wholesale defense of a (presumed) act?

[freedomben]

> There's a difference between holding diverging opinions, and defending someone who had sex with a sex trafficed minor, right? If we don't uphold at least that as a society, what are we?

Is your problem with the person who had the sex, or the person defending them? The former I agree is a huge problem, the latter seems highly dangerous and I very much disagree with you. It would be impossible to get any sort of due process or fair trial if even defending you makes you toxic, unemployable, and evil. What if you are innocent? Imagine trying to find a lawyer...

What about me? I'm not defending RMS' behavior, but I could see how someone would think I was. Do I deserve to be able to work? Do my kids deserve a home and food on the table?

[mvc]

Was rms defending Minsky in court?

[rumanator]

> Was rms defending Minsky in court?

In whose mind does this comment even start to make any sense? Are people supposed to only point out facts that contradict what a righteous Twitter mob is inventing if they are in the presence of a judge?

[mvc]

Adversarial justice systems require that people have a right to be defended by a lawyer when tried by the state in a court of law.

This is because court procedures are complicated and idiosyncratic and most people would not be expected to have the skills to defend themselves. The state is trying to take away a person's freedom so part of the social contract is that it has an obligation to provide them with independent help to navigate the process.

As far as I'm aware, Minsky had no legal case to answer and Stallman was not his defence lawyer. So while Stallman certainly has the right to defend him, in doing so he was risking his own reputation in a way that a criminal defence advocate (even when their client is found guilty of the most heinous crime imaginable) does not.

[megous]

Allegedly? I think it's fine to try to defend people against allegations. Though they are better and worse ways to do it.

Some people like Greg Benford claimed the sex didn't happen. I think that's a better way to go about it. Say you were present at the time and provide counter-claim.

Now, there doesn't seem to be proof either way.

[dependenttypes]

Do you believe that certain people (such as the ones accused of having sex with a sex trafficed person) should not be allowed to have attorneys?

[odessacubbage]

glad to know kids will stop getting fucked when all the bad opinions go away. thank you for all your hard work.

[dependenttypes]

> rms has had decades of inexcusable behavior

Then why attack him now and try to force him out of the organisation that he founded over something people misunderstood? They could just call to fire him over actual abusive behaviour instead.

[corey_moncure]

Stallman's accomplishments and legacy aren't what they are "in spite of" his personality. They're a direct consequence of it.

You're happy to benefit from the freedoms he fought for, the free GNU, built by GCC, and GPL licensed software that runs on your computer, your car, your phone, and your TV, and all the platforms you use on the internet (including this one). But you won't accept any Brilliant Jerks! I'm sure you'll put your money where your mouth is, and boycott all of these.

And while you're at it, why don't you list your numerous noteworthy accomplishments in life, and pinky-swear that you've never said anything in public that you regretted.

[mr_spothawk]

> decades of inexcusable behavior for any individual

That's blowing it way out of proportion. You mention one remark 13 years ago, and refer to it as decades.