[xwolfi]

We all have second-hand stories of how, when Stallman came to our cities (in my case Paris) for a conference, he acted like the worst fucking person on earth towards his volunteering hosts.

He was a terrible human being, and surely not very aware of how to treat other humans. He had no place in a research institution, or getting paid to pretend to be relevant on free software.

Good riddance, whatever reason we can find in his statements (yeah sure, I was 18 when my wife was 17, it wasn't rape, surely... but is that really the point people were making about his nice friend of Epstein ?).

People aren't for free speech, at all and anywhere: they are for people having the same opinion as them or follow an official line. He didn't do either, now he pays. For a genius like him, it should have been easy to understand you have to adapt if you want to lead, or you shut up if you see you can't lead.

[noobermin]

I hope this isn't a minority opinion, but making people uncomfortable should not be a reason to take their livelihood from them. If they actively mistreat people and abuse their power to hurt people, that is different. Being socially awkward and insufferable might make you not want to associate with them, but to me that's not enough of a reason to take their life from them.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

If you are in a leadership position part of your job is making sure people are comfortable associating with you.

Firing someone is not taking their life from them.

[noobermin]

I don't agree with either of your statements. There is a dividing line, which I was pointing out, between making someone uncomfortable and being toxic. I'm not sure, tbh, but it sounds closer to rms was just socially uncouth, he didn't abuse his position of power or anything like that, he just was an unpleasant person. I don't mind may be some sort of intervention over that, similar to what Linus Torvalds faced. Perhaps he has been "called-in" so to speak but that hasn't been stated in this conversation so far. What I consider toxic is closer to retaliating professionally against subordinates you don't like, forcing subordinates to do unprofessional things like favors to curry good standing with you, etc. I could be proven wrong, but a lot of what I've read from rms is he was just annoyingly pedantic, silly at times with off-collar humor, and too much of a "true believer" in various causes. None of that I consider beyond the pale for being toxic, some of those traits (like the "true believer" bit) are actually somewhat commendable, and why extremists often are good in pushing us to better ourselves or at the very least question the foundations of the status quo.

Also, firing someone is taking their livelihood from them. rms might be more comfortable than the average worker, but part of the reason there are special rules around work is in society today people need to work to survive. rms might be wealthy and have a cushion, I have no idea and so this might not apply to him. On the other hand however, free software has been his life's work, and he is being forced out of the organizations he started in order to further that cause. He probably will be hampered from ever contributing to free software moving forward. It might not be on the level of a walmart worker living paycheck to paycheck (which sure is a larger problem) but it is a wrong, at some level, to him if he is not offered a better deal or a chance to change.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

He has been acting in a manner that drives women away for a long time. There's been plenty of time to cut that shit out.

https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

You may not like the source, but they link to actual examples.

It's the leader's responsibility to create an environment that others feel safe joining.

He did a shit job at that.

I'm in a group he had been fine towards, but I've never found him someone I'd like to follow.

His bad behavior is not new, it's been going on for a very long time, why does he need more time to change? His statement on why he left makes it pretty clear he feels like he didn't say anything problematic.

[shadowgovt]

> part of the reason there are special rules around work is in society today people need to work to survive.

In America at least, we have an entire social safety net intended to avoid that scenario. Doesn't always work as intended, but there are too many counter examples to that simple description to accepted it at face value.

What people often do need work for is self-actualization, money for non-essentials, or to feel like they're making meaningful contributions to society. I don't see anything about RMS stepping down from the FSF that precludes him from submitting patches to whatever open source project he would like, or precludes him from publishing his own thoughts and research on his own website.

[pja]

Yup. Friend hosted him locally & has nothing good to say about Stallman whatsoever.

He’s had decades to listen to people telling him that his behaviour was unacceptable. The fact that he hasn’t changed at all is on him.

[GFischer]

My mother hosted him and I didn´t hear anything out of the ordinary for Stallman...

I mean, you know he´s going to be monothematic about his beliefs, but I heard nothing besides that.

[dangerface]

> People aren't for free speech, at all and anywhere: they are for people having the same opinion as them or follow an official line.

This just isn't true. Sure I want every one to respect my opinion but I don't want them to be a slave to it. I mean think about it if every one thought the same life would be boring as fuck.

[Smithalicious]

>We all have second-hand stories of how, when Stallman came to our cities (in my case Paris) for a conference, he acted like the worst fucking person on earth towards his volunteering hosts.

No we don't. Your vague unspecified second-hand stories aren't any kind of evidence or argument. Come with specifics or this is just slander.

[dragonwriter]

> Come with specifics or this is just slander.

Whether or not specifics are provided is irrelevant as to whether or not it's slander.

Specifics may be relevant to whether you personally believe it, but that's also not relevant to whether it is factually slander.

[Smithalicious]

Ah, I wasn't aware, sorry. Is there an English word that constitutes an accusation against someone with no proof?

[CocaKoala]

Allegation is the word you're looking for.

> a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

[grmp887]

Really? He was a "terrible human being" because he said something ignorant and was socially awkward / a bit rude in person?

I'm not defending what he said but this is a really backwards way to look at things. There are plenty of manipulative CEOs and public figures who are very careful with their speech while doing harm in their actions. Stallman turned down money for decades to do something good for the sake of public interest. There really aren't many people like that, in this industry or even on this site. It sucks he conflated his movement like this, but jumping to that conclusion based on something so shallow seems just as stupid.

[amyjess]

It's also well-known that he would hit on any woman who moves. When conference organizers finally told him to stop coming up to women and asking them out, he started printing out "pleasure cards" with his contact information and an invitation to fuck on them and wordlessly handing them out to women instead.

In order to ward off his advances, women faculty at MIT have taken to taking advantage of his phobia of plants. They decorate their offices with as many plants as they can and have even taken to wearing plants just to keep him from hitting on them.

This is not and should never be acceptable behavior.

[pvaldes]

> his phobia of plants

Taking in mind that there are dozens, maybe thousands of photos of him on internet smiling near flowers, pots, pots over tables, cut flowers, taking photos of wild flowers, or posing relaxed on several jungles and forests, my congratulations to Mr Stallman for having overcomed his botagnuphobia so well.

This is not what you would expect from a real phobic person IMHO, so I wouldn't discard still that is just another stupid rumour (or perhaps some female students are overreacting badly to a rumour?).

[u801e]

> he started printing out "pleasure cards" with his contact information and an invitation to fuck on them and wordlessly handing them out to women instead.

Did anyone ever report this behavior to law enforcement? Did anyone try to obtain a restraining order against him?

[dragonwriter]

> Did anyone ever report this behavior to law enforcement?

It is not illegal to invite (adult) people to have sex with you, orally or in writing, so there is nothing for law enforcement to do.

> Did anyone try to obtain a restraining order against him?

Offering sex to other adults isn't illegal, so there would be no basis for a restraining order.

[bethly]

He was creepy and unprofessional, not a criminal. “Be fired” is the proportional and appropriate response.

[bandrami]

To my knowledge that's not a crime. However, it is creepy and unprofessional, and the sort of thing that gets you fired (unfortunately not quickly enough)

[EForEndeavour]

Wow... This makes RMS sound like a Batman villain who never quite made it big.

[api]

Epstein has always reminded me of someone Batman would fight. He even had henchmen and an island lair.

A while back some friends and I came up with his super-villain name. Batman had The Riddler, but Epstein would be... drum roll... The Diddler! Now roll that into one of those old campy Batman episodes from the 60s and you'd have a hell of a skit.

All I can do is laugh at this stuff sometimes. The alternative is to get depressed about the lack of judgement that seems to be routinely shown by otherwise very bright people who should know better. People seem to be such suckers for these charismatic psychopath types and their "energy."

[Endy]

In one (mostly non-canon-ish) novel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Ultimate_Evil , he did take on a guy who was terrifyingly like Epstein; among others.

[pvaldes]

"I fear plants; my enemies will share my fears, because I'm Potman!"

I hope he never has the occurence to disguise as Poison Lenny in the next halloween, My poor heart couldn't afford more jump-scares.

[api]

> his phobia of plants.

> They decorate their offices with as many plants as they can and have even taken to wearing plants just to keep him from hitting on them.

I used to live and work around MIT and I'm trying to decide if this equals or exceeds the ludicrous batshit insane ass clowning that I witnessed. I'm not sure.

My stories don't involve Stallman, but... well... I'll just say "tech weenie weenie" and anyone around MIT who knows will know.

Mahketing mahketing! (maniacal clap)

In any case I'm not at all surprised that someone like Epstein would be sleazing around MIT.

I need to shut up now.

[rjf72]

I think most people, especially in America, are very much for free speech. But inertia. And that inertia is especially pronounced when the mobs are going after somebody you don't agree with. Like the old poem goes:

- First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

- Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

- Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

- Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me.

That holds very true to this day in America. I really vehemently disagree with Stallman's views in many ways. So it's easy to not say anything, yet I do believe he has a right to say the things he does without getting depersoned. In any case I'd much rather the people that do abide his views do so publicly rather than in secret.

But beyond this, I think he chose a reasonable hill to die on. He undoubtedly knew his comments would spark a mob in the zeitgeist of today, but they really are about as tepid as you could get. He was saying it was a bad idea for terms, even if legally accurate, to be used in general speech when they mislead people as to the nature of a situation. If that's the new standard for moving from words to 'let's get rid of this guy', we may not even have a standard. And I think that's a point that will resonate for more and more people. Even if these people might be afraid to speak out for fear of becoming the mobs' next target, it helps bring about a positive change in society.

An analogy I love to consider is Lincoln. Did Lincoln end slavery and direct society accordingly or did society reach a point such that the creation of a Lincoln was, sooner or later, inevitable - even if by another name? And I think things like this bring us ever closer to creating our Lincoln because solving the problems of social media is not something that's going to be done in a clean fashion.