[kosinus]

> American freedom of speech

This specifically is such a weird expression.

Other than that, just because Stallman did a good thing once, doesn’t excuse him from other mistakes. And making mistakes is not itself a problem, you can always own up to them and learn. But what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour.

[tspiteri]

> did a good thing once

Discounting something as "a good thing once" sounds weird to me: many things require a huge amount of work to carry off, so "once" here can encompass dedicating someone's life work for decades, just for that one thing. (Sorry for going off topic, as I'm not commenting either way on your point, just on this phrase.)

[read_if_gay_]

It’s completely flipped. Reality’s more like he did a bad thing once and now that’s supposed to invalidate all of the good he’s done.

[kosinus]

I wouldn't say it's off topic. I've been thinking about this, because I do agree with you that I likely underestimate his contributions. I wasn't following the movement back then, and only know of his reputation. (I was probably too young.)

But I also don't feel like this moves me at all, and I think that's because his past contributions aren't being erased here. What matters is the person he is now, how that doesn't fit this role they're assigning to him, and how it doesn't align with what the free software movement has become (pushing diversification).

[bartread]

> Other than that, just because Stallman did a good thing once...

Come on: this is a massive trivialisation of RMS's achievements. I have often disagreed with him but his contributions to OSS, and to the wider foundations of modern software and software development, are huge and are the product of decades of devotion - of consistent, motivated effort - from him.

Like it or not, all of us who work in software - even those of us who aren't necessarily strong advocates of free software - benefit from RMS's work.

I've also got bad news for you: we all exhibit _patterns_ of bad behaviour. Fortunately, we are all equipped with the capacity to change even long ingrained habits and patterns.

(To be clear: I am in no way defending any bad behaviour from RMS towards other people, or suggesting that he shouldn't change that behaviour.)

[noirscape]

What did he do in the past 15 years outside of starting petty feuds that nobody cares about (the Linux name debacle) and being a horrible public speaker (there's heaps of stories of him being a dickhead to convention organizers, other convention guests and in general not really keeping any check on what he's even getting hired for)?

Like, I recognize that what he did back in the 80s matters, but somewhere around the turn of the millenium, he seems to have done very little of actual note and in the past 3 years or so seems to have become an active liability since the main things that got him attention were:

- Using his rights as GNU lead to veto the removal of a bad, outdated, US-centric, abortion joke from the glibc manual. This is after all other project maintainers agreed to remove it.

- Made appalling comments about the Epstein case (yes the media spun the story badly, that doesn't change that what Stallman said was horrible).

Even outside of that, there's also literal years of the following:

- Many examples of Stallman being a creep to women and an insensitive dickhead in general is something that existed before but really came to a head.

- The FSF maintaining a very egocentric approach to FOSS (thinking it's the sole relevant authority on advancing thoughts and ideas behind FOSS, as well as getting very cranky when projects don't want to join the GNU), something which seems near universally pushed by Stallman since every case of this somehow ended up involving him.

- Consistently vetoing plugin framework support for GCC out of an ideological fear that seems to consistently be cited as the main cause for it being superseded by clang/llvm.

> Fortunately, we are all equipped with the capacity to change even long ingrained habits and patterns.

It does come at the prerequisite that the person in question actually wants to change. Stallman is notoriously stubborn and it took him literally getting fired from the FSF to even admit that the most outstanding problem with his views (his stance on pedophilia) was wrong and he's never even bothered to address any of the others.

[Roark66]

>What did he do in the past 15 years outside of starting petty feuds that nobody cares about (the Linux name debacle) and being a horrible public speaker (there's heaps of stories of him being a dickhead to convention organizers, other convention guests and in general not really keeping any check on what he's even getting hired for)?

For one he managed to keep the whole GNU project true to its values by being someone people listen on the subject. How many other people do you know you can guarantee not to "monetize" and sell out such a huge project to a highest bidder in the meantime?

>Like, I recognize that what he did back in the 80s matters, but somewhere around the turn of the millenium, he seems to have done very little of actual note and in the past 3 years or so seems to have become an active liability

You do realise that his role is not so much being a coder nor even a manager, but being what in business is sometimes called "a visionary". Thankfully there are enough coders and managers involved to have GNU and Foss going. The value of Stallman in the 80s and earlier was not just in the code he wrote but the ideas he managed to implement in our collective consciousness by doing that. Now more than ever we need someone we can count on to offer advice and leadership that has no agenda other than the original values.

>Made appalling comments about the Epstein case (yes the media spun the story badly, that doesn't change that what Stallman said was horrible).

What is it that he actually said that was so "horrible"? Are you sure you are actually talking about what he said or have your opinions been formed by lies? Read this and tell me what is so horrible in his actual stance on the subject: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-Web

>Stallman is notoriously stubborn and it took him literally getting fired from the FSF to even admit that the most outstanding problem with his views (his stance on pedophilia)

Please do enlighten me on what Stallman's stance on pedophilia is? But please use actual text written by him (not ripped out of context) rather than he said she said.

I believe this lie that Stallman justifies pedophilia came from an opinion the previously linked article describes like this "(his point) is mainly that we overuse and distort the term child pornography to refer to any depiction of any minor in any context that is even vaguely sexual." Is that untrue? Have you not heard about cases where actual 17 year old people were prosecuted for pedophilia because they had their own photo on their phone that was deemed sexual in nature by some judge?

[pseudalopex]

Stallman's skill was as a visionary. His role wasn't limited to that unfortunately. Multiple FSF employees say they unionized because of Stallman's management.[1][2] And people have pointed out several examples of him overriding GNU project maintainers.

Stallman said several times adults having sex with children was fine if the children consented.[3][4][5] He changed his mind in 2018 or 2019 apparently.[4][6]

[1] https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1374499598853545986

[2] https://twitter.com/NovalisDMT/status/1172573166956437505

[3] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...

[4] https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...

[5] https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2...

[6] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

[Roark66]

Ok, I wasn't aware of this. I agree his point of view was narrow minded. I can't defend it. He did change it as he says (in 6th link) based on conversations with someone who explained to him the harm caused.

People learn all their life. I'm glad he did. Should having that view before and understanding own error disqualify him from FSF? I don't know. At least we're talking about it based on fact not hearsay.

[pseudalopex]

Bradley Kuhn said most of what I could say about Stallman better.[1] The bottom line is Stallman made himself a less effective Free Software advocate by spouting controversial opinions about things he had no expertise in. Not just adults having sex with children.

It took many years to change Stallman's opinion on this 1 thing. He still didn't apologize for calling people prejudiced and narrow minded because they disagreed with him. Or mocking parents who he realized were right. And some people take issue with him not mentioning it until after he came under pressure to resign.

[1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

[noirscape]

> For one he managed to keep the whole GNU project true to its values by being someone people listen on the subject. How many other people do you know you can guarantee not to "monetize" and sell out such a huge project to a highest bidder in the meantime?

Quite a lot of them actually. In a sense, that is the big advantage that free software (but really the copyleft, since let's be honest that's Stallmans most meaningful contribution to the current ecosystem that everyone who does use FOSS uses) offers.

If someone ends up being a malicious, self-serving actor who sells out their project to the highest bidder, the copyleft is there to ensure that even if the copyright is signed away using an CAA (which if you want to argue about that, I would recommend you don't do it in a thread involving the GNU/FSF since they have notoriously bad and outdated CAA systems from what I heard), you can still keep that project going.

From projects such as Emby getting forked to Jellyfin, from Owncloud to Nextcloud, from the long history of adblockers getting sold to big corporations and then other maintainers stepping in to fork them back; THAT is the big strength of FOSS and copyleft. The idea that a sufficiently big and developed project can never truly "die", even when it changes hands. Sure the road is rocky sometimes (ffmpeg vs avconv was a case of maintainer drama that led to forks and eventually withered away), but that is what makes it worth it in the end.

None of that really falls back on Stallman's seemingly singular attempt to claim ownership on the entirety of FOSS. It does on the countless developers, project maintainers and the like who don't sell out and in the event that one does, that their damage is limited.

> You do realise that his role is not so much being a coder nor even a manager, but being what in business is sometimes called "a visionary". Thankfully there are enough coders and managers involved to have GNU and Foss going. The value of Stallman in the 80s and earlier was not just in the code he wrote but the ideas he managed to implement in our collective consciousness by doing that. Now more than ever we need someone we can count on to offer advice and leadership that has no agenda other than the original values.

Except he's also pretty much *the* public speaker for the FSF and their main PR person. And at that role he is just an objective failure. There is a constant stream of PR disasters. I am by no means a PR person, but you don't have to be an expert at something to note when someone is doing something really wrong.

We don't need Stallman anymore. There's plenty of great voices and developers in Free Software. Stallman is what, 68? He's past retirement age in my country. He won't be around forever. If anything, we should be looking to successors for him. Both on the PR and the visionary end. Stallman should have been put on a backseat by the FSF years ago. Instead, the organization has turned itself into a bloated singularity around the opinions of one man, backed up by a not insignificant amount of Free Software projects to give it weight.

> What is it that he actually said that was so "horrible"? Are you sure you are actually talking about what he said or have your opinions been formed by lies? Read this and tell me what is so horrible in his actual stance on the subject: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-Web

Redefining sexual assault in a way that would exclude many victims of sexual assault, reiterating his own stance that he thinks the age of consent is meaningless. Just about the only thing the media got wrong was because Vice (which yeah, is a shitty outlet) went for a cheap headline that most news sites copied. I have linked below for you the original email exchanges if you want to check them.[1]

> Please do enlighten me on what Stallman's stance on pedophilia is? But please use actual text written by him (not ripped out of context) rather than he said she said.

He's since walked these back as stated before, but here's the two biggest ones: [2][3]

[1]: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-0913201914205...

[2]: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...

[3]: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_Janua...

[Roark66]

I'm not arguing to put him in charge of FSF nor that he is the right person to do PR. I'm arguing against "cancelling" him altogether because of few stupid opinions he held and few others that got blown out of proportion. Let me refer to them one by one.

On pedophilia- his original opinion is not defensible. He eventually understood and admitted his error. Personally I believe the change is genuine. Can one blame someone for holding a wrong opinion based on genuine lack of knowledge of the subject specially when that person changes that opinion when presented with facts contradicting it? I don't think so.

On sexual assault - you said he is/was redefining the definition to exclude many victims. I assume this stems from his email in defense of Marvin Minsky in which he wrote:

"The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing... We 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…"

It is not the kindest way to discuss situations of abuse, but factually I see no attempt to redefine sexual assault as a term. Just an objection to its use in one very particular situation. A situation in which the victim herself didn't know if the alleged perpetrator is aware she is being coerced. Additionally, "sexual assault" is already a very imprecise term. It means different things in different places. My opinion of Epstein is based on a Netflix documentary. I assume the information given there is truthful. Based on that it is unknown if "visitors" on the island were aware of the coercion. Recently I heard in the local news a gang of criminals was caught by police. Those criminals forced prostitutes to pay them "protection", forced unwilling (often trafficked) women into prostitution, and attacked independent prostitutes that didn't pay them. Did men that unknowingly used services of trafficked/coerced women abuse them? They definitely did, but is the term sexual assault adequate to describe both what they did and an encounter where unsuspecting victim is violently attacked? Hell no. Am I now guilty of redefining the term in a way that excludes many victims?

Age of consent-I think this has to be linked with his opinion on pedophilia which I already did comment on.

Coming back to Foss. >We don't need Stallman anymore. There's plenty of great voices and developers in Free Software. Stallman is what, 68? He's past retirement age in my country. He won't be around forever. If anything, we should be looking to successors for him.

As mentioned before I don't want him in the driving seat of FSF, but at the same time I don't think he should be cancelled from the Internet.

I do think this whole current vendetta against the guy was created by one "activist" as a tool to make her famous/or to make her feel good.

[noirscape]

> As mentioned before I don't want him in the driving seat of FSF, but at the same time I don't think he should be cancelled from the Internet.

I think this is the only part of the reply worth focusing on; we're in agreement here. Stallman is free to be... Stallman really. He just shouldn't be in a position of power like he is right now with the FSF and GNU.

He should step down along with the rest of the board (who have shown themselves to be compromised in properly addressing issues involving him), but after that he's really free to do whatever. Hell, I wouldn't even object to putting him on a completely powerless "honor" position as Founder Emeritus or something.

Beyond that, there isn't much to argue. Nobody is saying that Stallman can't run stallman.org or represent himself, that's his own website and as long as he's not breaking the law by keeping it up, I see no grounds to object to that.

It's simply that his current presence in the FSF is actively hurting promotion and adoption rates of Free Software.

> I do think this whole current vendetta against the guy was created by one "activist" as a tool to make her famous/or to make her feel good.

Which one? The one that got him fired in 2019? That person isn't involved with the current controversy. The current controversy is purely because Stallman announced that he was back in the drivers seat of the FSF without even so much as an apology for the literal decades of all the other reasons that people think he's an asshat (beyond even the pedophile shit).

[deknos]

> As mentioned before I don't want him in the driving seat of FSF, but at the same time I don't think he should be cancelled from the Internet.

What do you think this discussion is about? Nobody wants that he cannot access the internet or that he cannot publish on his own website.

but people protest that he is a public front member of the FSF.

[twic]

Stallman is completely useless, but then the FSF is also completely useless, so it seems quite unfair that he wouldn't be allowed to work there.

[Roark66]

>But what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour.

This is such bullshit. There is no pattern of bad behaviour. There are some opinions that are considered controversial by mere fact of containing his actual thoughts on sensitive subjects rather than phrases repeated verbatim from the "currently allowed viewpoints" book. His views are not even contrary, they are just phrased in a way that allows dialogue of the subject. This is enough for the pure evil villains like Sarah Mei to build up her online persona by misattribution, lying and fabricating information crafted in a way that directs a mindless mob to online-lynch the man that in his life has done more for the freedom of that mob's members than anyone else alive. It is despicable. If anything deserves to be "cancelled" it is Sarah Mei's opinions on the subject.

The collective stupidity of the mob in question is completely beside the point as well as the actual content of Stallman's opinions which seem not to matter to anyone. This story really has one villain only and that person is not Richard Stallman.

[zecg]

> what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour.

I disagree, it's all very much overblown.

[2pEXgD0fZ5cF]

I can't comment on most of the accusations, I have never met rms in person. But what really shocked me was that the authors of the anti rms letter label him as "transphobe", as a source for that claim they link to his GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [1], which to me spell the exact opposite. Why put such a claim in there?

I find it really disturbing that so many people willingly accept that it's ok to mix legitimate criticism (assuming it is) with what is basically lies. "Might as well call him a few other bad names while we're at it for maximum impact"?. Why?

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html

[pjc50]

It's the footnote. Call people by their pronouns, not some random one "per" you made up for them.

[orra]

The footnote of that policy allows you to persistently call a trans man "they", even if his preferred pronoun is he. That is, the policy endorses you misgendering.

Calling a he/him person a "they" is a way of saying that you don't think they're a real man. It's really not much better than calling a trans man "her".

Finally, the previous version of the said guidelines used to reject singular they. Singular they is a great way to refer to somebody whose pronouns you don't know. Moreover, it's the preferred pronoun for many non-binary people.

[prepend]

They explicitly call out ways to respect and accommodate all pronouns. This footnote describes methods of using pronouns so that they don’t conflict in situations where a pronoun may not be known or understood.

The previous item says that gender identity should be respected and so purposely using the wrong pronoun would be in conflict here.

Interpreting this footnote that seems to provide more detail on how to work with diverse pronouned people as a transphobic issue is not a good piece of evidence to label RMS as a transphobe.

Especially since it seems to be pro trans and pro inclusivity.

[orra]

> Interpreting this footnote [...]

No, the footnote itself is very clear that it's OK to call a trans man "they" and never "he", if you reject his identity and would prefer to call him "she".

We cannot excuse the footnote just because the main text is better.

> Especially since it seems to be pro trans and pro inclusivity.

Moreover, the context is this document used to reject calling non-binary they people "they".

So the context is this document used to be outright transphobic. Thus skepticism is warranted. Has the document improved? Substantially. Is it still problematic? Very much so.

[prepend]

I interpreted that differently as there’s a separate point about respecting people’s gender identity and purposely misusing pronouns would conflict with the guidance.

I read this to mean that there are ways to use they or per your address people when pronouns are uncertain. In that it I don’t know a pronoun then a good way to handle this is to use singular they.

I do this when gender is uncertain, as typical with the Internet and mailing lists and projects and what not.

I did not read this as allowing rude and inappropriate behavior to bypass people’s preferred pronouns.

[2pEXgD0fZ5cF]

Then what about the following part from the guidelines:

> Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.

[orra]

The guideline argues "they" is gender neutral, so it does not conflict with anybody's gender identity. This misses the point.

"they" is indeed gender neutral. But when we talk about specific individuals, we almost always use gendered pronouns.

Hence, as I said, persistently using "they" for a binary trans person is a veiled insult. Again, it's like saying 'You're not a real man, but I am not allowed to call you she, so I will call you they'.

[jhugo]

Knowing very little about this issue, this seems like a minefield. I have met many people whose native language doesn't have gendered pronouns, who make mistakes constantly when trying to use them in English and eventually learn to use "they" consistently to avoid getting it wrong. According to this standard, they would be being disrespectful whenever they meet someone with a strong preference about their pronoun, even if they had no knowledge of the preference.

[buisi]

Using "she" and "he" would be hurtful in reference to a non-binary individual. Non-binary are more common than you think.

"they" is useful when you don't know someone's pronouns, and it's better to form a habit of using "they" for everyone (not just non-trans imo), than to accidentally use the wrong gendered pronoun, which may trigger their dysphoria more strongly.

I'm not getting the notion from this policy that it is intended to get individuals to deliberately use the wrong pronoun, because they're uncomfortable with using the correct pronoun for them. But, if you think it is ambiguous, then it could certainly be reworded.

[ardfard]

> The footnote of that policy allows you to persistently call a trans man "they", even if his preferred pronoun is he. That is, the policy endorses you misgendering.

This one of example here is why I think RMS debacle is a bit overblown. This really just stretching it to make his statement seems offensive. It even put him in a stance in which he never had.

I cannot in my best intention to read "Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity." as endorsing misgendering.

[orra]

The old version of the document was worse, and Stallman's personal website to this day rejects the use of singular they. That's the context. It's why there's little doubt to give the benefit of.

[bitwize]

It's the bit about singular "they". RMS for some reason doesn't like singular "they", despite the fact that it predates singular "you" in common English usage. Singular "they" also happens to be, by far, the preferred pronoun of nonbinary people. By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people from participation in GNU projects.

[toyg]

> By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people

Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people...?

This sort of attitude is seriously disrespectful to people who are actually being harmed, offended, and physically chased away from real spaces.

[daveoc64]

> Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people...?

If you're intentionally going out of your way to use a pronoun that someone doesn't feel represents them, then yes - that is persecuting them.

If someone asks you to stop, and you keep doing it - that's persecuting them.

[DanBC]

> Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people

Chosing to reject someone's identity is persecuting them, yes. Luckily in England the courts agree and transphobes who refuse to use people's correct pronouns often lose their employment tribunal cases.

[toyg]

“Often” - I’d be curious to see stats. Not that I don’t believe you, I do; I’m just thinking this is such an edge case of an edge case, that the trade-offs involved in accommodating it might not be worth for society at large. After all, the Holy Inquisition made ultracatholics very happy too.

[bitwize]

It's actually a hate crime in Canada. You deliberately misgender someone, you can expect to be arrested and maybe spend time in prison.

[2pEXgD0fZ5cF]

In the linked guidelines it says the following:

> Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.

> There are several ways to avoid that; one way is to use gender-neutral pronouns, since they don't conflict with any possible gender identity.

> One choice is singular use of “they,” “them” and “their.”

> Another choice uses the gender-neutral singular pronouns, “person,” “per” and “pers,” which are used in Information for Maintainers of GNU Software.

> Other gender-neutral pronouns have also been used in English.

I'm genuinely trying to understand this. That does not spell a strong opposition to the supposedly preferred use of "they". But even then, does that really warrant the label "transphobe"?

Is that all it takes to qualify as a transphobe person, despite all the other points?

[DanBC]

I feel like you're stuck on the reference to the guidelines. People are combing the guidelines with other things RMS has said about the word "they".

RMS has spent several years railing against "them"/"they", based on his flawed understanding of English.

> Is that all it takes to qualify as a transphobe person, despite all the other points?

If you know my pronouns are he/him but you decide that you can't use those and insist on using they/them instead then yes, you have an irrational dislike of trans people and you're a transphobe, unless you can show that you only use gender neutral pronouns for everyone.

[orra]

> There are several ways to avoid that; one way is to use gender-neutral pronouns, since they don't conflict with any possible gender identity.

I have explained elsewhere in this thread why it's problematic to call a he/him trans man "they" and never "him"

> That does not spell a strong opposition to the supposedly preferred use of "they".

A previous version of the guidelines banned singular they. It has single been updated, even though Stallman on his personal site continues his disapproval.

> Is that all it takes to qualify as a transphobe person, despite all the other points

Rejecting gender identities is core to being a transphobe.

[Shish2k]

TBH even as a nonbinary person who goes by singular “they”, even I think that singular-they is ambiguous and I wish that some other non-ambiguous singular-gender-neutral pronoun had taken off instead…

(I’m still going by “they” because a bad standard beats an incompatible hodgepodge of non-standards)

[orra]

That policy has since been updated to allow singular they, despite Stallman's objection to singular they.

But now the footnote of the policy would allow you to call a trans woman "they" and never "her". That's not something transphobes (or anybody else) would ever do to a cis woman.

[ben_w]

FWIW, I tried to get in the habit of using singular-“they” for everyone, even where I know their gender and they are cis, to reduce any subconscious gender bias. This has had two effects: learning that some trans people really don’t like that, and everyone assuming my partner is a dude. (He is, but I’m bi and therefore this is mere coincidence).

[orra]

Interesting.

I've taken to calling my partner "partner", to be gender neutral. But in the short term, people probably incorrectly infer I use the term because I am gay. Or, if they're presumptive but less presumptive, gay or bi.

[buisi]

Has he objected? If he is voicing his opinion on his blog, but the policy for GNU (which he runs) is otherwise progressive, then it feels like he is separating his personal opinions from how he operates a professional venue.

[beaconstudios]

what did he actually do that you would consider "bad behaviour"? I know he's widely regarded as a blunt/offensive speaker, willing to speak his mind on topics most sensible people just keep quiet on, but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes?

[edit] this is a genuine question. I've seen him write edgy things but am not aware of any harm he's done to others.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

“It’s only bad if there’s a law against it.” We used to be able to buy LSD on sugar cubes at record stores, because there was no specific law against it. Most folks just became really annoying for a few hours, but a number ended up in hospitals for the remainder of their lives.

There’s a strong argument that all drugs should be legal, as it will allow natural selection to work, but tell that to the families of drug overdose victims; many of whom OD on their first go.

As a former manager, and as someone that holds a fairly senior position in an organization that has very little to do with what we talk about here, I can tell you that words have consequences. They can be tremendously good, or tremendously bad. They can manifest into true criminal behavior, and that’s one reason why cult leaders and other instigators are prosecuted; even though they, themselves, didn’t get their hands dirty. Anyone remember Charlie Manson? Some of the worst criminals, during the Rwandan genocide, were radio DJs, who whipped people into a frenzy, and reported on the locations of Tutsi families.

That said, I am also someone “on the spectrum,” as they say, nowadays, and have spent my entire life, being held to account for my blunt comments and lack of empathy. I learned to compensate, and am now in a position to do real damage, if I’m not careful about what I say.

A bricklayer can spout off a bunch of nonsense with few ramifications, but the owner of the construction company needs to be careful what they say.

[beaconstudios]

> “It’s only bad if there’s a law against it.”

From my question:

> but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes?

So I'm not sure who your argument there was aimed against, but it wasn't me. I suspect any resemblance between the law and the morality of harm-reduction is merely coincidence.

> As a former manager, and as someone that holds a fairly senior position in an organization that has very little to do with what we talk about here, I can tell you that words have consequences.

Obviously yes, saying dumb things will get you criticised and people may think you're a dick. But there's a difference between saying "RMS is socially indiscrete and thus should not hold a political position within our advocacy organisation" and "RMS is a bad person and even suggesting that he hold such a position is a resignation-worthy offence". FWIW I agree that RMS seems to be socially incompetent enough to not be a political leader, but that doesn't account for the feeding frenzy around the prospect of his re-appointment.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Well, since this was honestly asked, as opposed to "Why don't we swan dive into the cesspool," I'm happy to relate my experience, and the opinions derived, thereof.

First of all, I don't have an axe to grind, re: RMS. I'm grateful for his contributions, and find some of what he says a bit annoying (but not something I lose sleep over). I honestly don't care whether or not he sits on the FSF board. It has almost nothing to do with the day-to-day work I do.

> but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes?

Well, the actual question was "Committed any crimes?", verbatim, so answering, by referring to the law of the land (or lack, thereof), is quite understandable. We live in a time, where "If it's legal, it's gold." seems to be the modus operandi of the business world. I find that we spend precious little time, considering such trivialities as Honor, Integrity or Honesty, when looking only at the legal code.

As to "harming someone," I suspect that we may not be the best judge of that. I deal with highly traumatized people, several days a week, and am quite aware of the grievous harm that can be done by folks, not intending to do harm. Often, the most damage is done by simple words (or lack of words), from those in a perceived position of authority (like parents or bosses).

> Obviously yes, saying dumb things will get you criticised and people may think you're a dick.

When people in positions of authority (and RMS is definitely an authority, whether or not he sits on a board) say stuff, it has a lot of impact. In my extracurricular world, I also spend a lot of time, running around with baby wipes, and a pooper-scooper, cleaning up emotional and physical damage, caused by the careless words of folks with authority that refuse to take Responsibility for their positions of influence. I have been one of those people, and have caused damage, by careless words.

I get rather peeved at people that have achieved some position of influence, then disregard the considerable Responsibility that comes with the trappings of power. Like I said, a bricklayer can spout off a bunch of guff, but their bosses are morally (and sometimes, ethically, and even legally) Responsible to watch what the heck they say. Today's hyper-connected world makes this even more imperative. Jerome Powell can crash the stock market by taking off his glasses to rub his eyes.

I really wish that society did a better job of teaching simple ethics, courtesy and logic. As someone who actually has a somewhat diminished capacity for this, I have had to learn it from scratch; often the hard way. I have caused a lot of hurt and embarrassment, over the years, been held to account, and have had to apply a great deal of self-discipline to mitigate my natural inclinations. It has not been fun. It's difficult for me to be sympathetic to folks that should have it come natural, and I know, for a fact, that there is a better way.

[beaconstudios]

> Well, the actual question was "Committed any crimes?", verbatim

Perhaps my grammar was too ambiguous, but the question was intended as an either/or, not a continuation clause. I listed real harm first as a higher priority too. Committing a crime was if anything, a secondary concern - if someone had claimed he was guilty of stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family I wouldn't be up in arms against him.

> I find that we spend precious little time, considering such trivialities as Honor, Integrity or Honesty, when looking only at the legal code.

True enough - codification is treated as a very Holy concept under modernism. If the letter of the law doesn't explicitly state so, then it's OK. I consider that one of many of modernism's failings.

> As to "harming someone," I suspect that we may not be the best judge of that. I deal with highly traumatized people, several days a week, and am quite aware of the grievous harm that can be done by folks, not intending to do harm.

This is not a useful measure because people can claim harm for nearly anything. The best thing that can be done for highly traumatised people is to help them get over their trauma and successfully begin navigating society again. Wrapping victimised people up in cotton wool does nothing to help anybody, especially if doing so requires that wider society constrict itself. I say that as someone with complex PTSD myself.

> In my extracurricular world, I also spend a lot of time, running around with baby wipes, and a pooper-scooper, cleaning up emotional and physical damage, caused by the careless words of folks with authority that refuse to take Responsibility for their positions of influence.

Emotional and physical damage are not equivalent. If I say something in innocuous innocence and you take offense or it triggers an unreasonable response from you, it's not on me to navigate your issues. If I do physical harm to you, I should be in prison. Of course there's a line between being accidentally and intentionally hurtful, and the line is intent.

> I get rather peeved at people that have achieved some position of influence, then disregard the considerable Responsibility that comes with the trappings of power. Like I said, a bricklayer can spout off a bunch of guff, but their bosses are morally (and sometimes, ethically, and even legally) Responsible to watch what the heck they say.

Of course that is true, and why I don't believe RMS should steward the FSF: he's just not socially capable of the position, too abrasive. But that doesn't make him a toxic person or worthy of cancellation or whatever - it's just not his wheelhouse. This entire thread is about me asking if he's actually done anything bad, besides being socially inept.

> I really wish that society did a better job of teaching simple ethics, courtesy and logic.

That's what parents, personal experience and community are for. Unfortunately, community is dead in the city, so parents and personal experience it is.

Most people in my experience get stupider as they become more logical. HN is a perfect example of this.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Well, I sincerely wish you well, in your journey. I am familiar with that kind of thing. Well worth it, to do the hard work.

I am not a fan of what is termed "cancel culture." Unfortunately, the whole thing has turned into a polarized litmus test. We forget that there are real people connected to these words and actions; on both ends of the exchange.

Let me tell you about Onnig.

Onnig was a former engineer, in Lebanon, and had to flee to the US, with his wife and children, when things went bad, over there, in the 1970s or 1980s. I met him, because he lived in the apartment one floor above my girlfriend (now wife). Back then, he was in his nineties. I'm sure he's long dead.

He was a survivor of the Armenian genocide/massacre/whatever you want to call it. A lot of people died. It truly sucked.

Onnig and his wife had nothing. The apartment was a cheap living arrangement. I suspect their kids helped them to stay above water (I know their daughter, at least, was a lawyer).

Onnig and his wife were some of the kindest, and most generous people I have ever met. They helped my girlfriend out, numerous times. She was a single mother, and didn't have a pot to piss in. They used to leave bags of day-old bagels on her apartment door, a couple of times a week. They were also Salvation Army bell ringers. I'd run into them, at a local mall, at Christmastime.

Onnig was also pretty damn racist. I quickly learned not to let the conversation go to places that would let him go off. I never confronted him on the matter. I just refused to feed the beast.

Some folks would have absolutely destroyed him, without a second thought. I'm sure that some folks, reading this, have already labeled me an "apologist," or even worse, because I didn't call him to account.

He had no authority. He was a tired old man, in the last few years of his life, and had been through stuff that most of us couldn't imagine. His words did little harm, and his actions benefitted many.

It's never a simple thing. We are humans, and humans are complex. It is up to each of us, to be the best we can, and live the best life we can. If we are fortunate enough to reach positions of authority, I believe that it is incumbent upon us all to take Responsibility and Accountability, as stewards of this authority. Most of us can usually find some way to use that authority to benefit society and others.

[Jochim]

> There’s a strong argument that all drugs should be legal, as it will allow natural selection to work, but tell that to the families of drug overdose victims; many of whom OD on their first go.

I've never seen legalisation argued for from this point of view, usually people in favour of legalisation argue that it allows the government treat addicts in order to reduce the chance of them dying from an overdose and also operate programs to get people clean. Legalisation enables this by redirecting budgets that previously went to enforcement action as well as the taxation that the less harmful options bring in.

[platonq]

So words "have consequences", and you asscociate Stallman's gaffes with:

- Dangers of LSD.

- Words of actual cult leaders, who are universally charismatic and manipulative. Stallman is the exact opposite and has zero influence outside the free software topic. Stallman is incapable of being manipulative.

- Mass murderers.

- Charismatic DJs in the Rwandan genocide.

I'm speechless that in this supposedly rational forum people employ the same dirty tactics as on Twitter.

[DanBC]

> I know he's widely regarded as a blunt/offensive speaker,

I find it genuinely odd that people can say this, and recognise that he's in a position that requires skill in communication, and not feel that there's a mismatch between the man and the job.

He has, for years, been poor at one of the core requirements of the position.

And then people say "but people make mistakes, he should be allowed to learn and grow" and I totally agree. But he shows no insight. He almost never accepts what he said was wrong, he almost always pushes that onto what other people understood.

[beaconstudios]

Sure, he's probably not the best person to be in a political position, but that's totally separate from the outrage he appears to be generating from the outrage crowd.

[FpUser]

>"...just because Stallman did a good thing once..."

This is one glaring trivialization. RMS had "once" spent decades of hard work from which we all benefit greatly.

[iagovar]

I'm not American and I 100% understand what he means.