I've been talking with friends about this issue and it really seems to come down to this: for some reason "intermediate" consequences are just impossible to implement in bureaucracies or organizations in general. Clearly Stallman did some completely unacceptable things and that can't go unpunished. However, like in all organizations I've seen (especially universities or hospitals dealing with sexual harassment from profs/attendings) there are only two types of consequences available: absolutely nothing, or complete exile. The organization rallies to protect the offender over and over until eventually a tidal wave becomes overwhelming and the organization is forced to purge the offender completely. This is bad for everyone: bad for the people being abused (and who will be abused), bad for the organization's reputation, bad for the offender themselves as there is never incentive to correct their behavior! I don't really know whether it's possible to implement a system of "intermediate" consequences but the lack of such a relief valve does serious harm in the long term. Regrettably in this system, exiling the offender is preferable to nothing being done yet again.
> for some reason "intermediate" consequences are just impossible to implement in bureaucracies or organizations in general
This is not particular to small organizations, it's a feature of the whole society. This attitude is one of the hallmarks of a move towards totalitarianism. There is no compromise possible, total defeat or total annihilation of opposing views are the only options.
This isn't an attitude, it's a response to the reality that intermediate consequences are never implemented. Solve that problem and you'll solve this cancel culture stuff people are complaining about.
Punishment vs rehabilitation. In this case you can have a chat with Stallman about the consequences of the pen and how people felt when they read his words and have him make a public statement afterwards.
Yeah, except even that has not happened over the long history of Stallman's bad behavior. People close ranks and support him. So finally he goes and defends pedophilia or whatever right in the middle of a huge scandal about academia's links to a child sex trafficker, and that puts him over the top. This is exactly what I'm talking about! The time for Stallman to sit down and write an apology for his actions was years ago. That ship has sailed.
While I agree with the essence of your comment, I find the statement "Clearly Stallman did some completely unacceptable things and that can't go unpunished" is questionable. First, it's not "clearly", because the main argument (that he was defending Epstein) is false. Second, as to "unacceptable", it depends to who and when - certain things that were acceptable 20 years ago are unthinkable now. Third, as for "can't go unpunished" - again, the question is who should judge the guilt and who is going to pass sentence.
It's way more than the Epstein thing. This has been going on for years. Telling an undergrad he would kill himself if she didn't date him is one example.
This has been an established pattern of behavior reported by multiple women over time, fitting with what we know about his interactions & attitude toward female colleagues. Zooming in on a single incident to cross-examine it like a court case is exactly what leads to these zero-consequences outcomes that drive women out of the field.
That only makes him a weirdo, not more than that. Should he be prosecuted for being weirdo? I doubt so. It was uncomfortable for women but they weren't forced or threatened (remember he was saying he will kill himself, not her/him).
So how should we punish him? How long did this evil act take place? Do these actions have statute of limitations? In Massachusetts rape has 15 years SoL, but clearly this is a much more severe offense.
The point is there was no punishment for that! Nor for the many other things he has done! People closed ranks and it was as if nothing happened. Now the final bill has come due. And you start talking about statute of limitations. This is someone who has acted in a consistent way over many years. He should not be a leader in a project which purports to fight for the freedom of all people. Such a role is a privilege. Statute of limitations is a legal concept applying to the legal arena. This is not that. Stop conflating them.
This is so completely wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin arguing it with.
1. The Founder of a project is the one who gets the biggest say in who should lead it, not some random virtue signalling dude from the internet.
2. Why should I stop conflating these issues? You judge the person for his actions, just like criminal judges do. However, the very criminal and ugly offense of rape is NOT punishable by the law after a number of years. But you are such a severe judge that you demand a punishment with no lenience or clemency and no statute of limitations for being an unpleasant person who is very awkward with women, and allegedly made someone uncomfortable three decades ago.
3. Found your own project, run it the way you like, decide who will have a 'privilege' to lead it.
I think all the arguments about ostracizing him are open. Most are pretty out of context or admittedly he apologized for.
To me, this looks more like a group of people who don’t like RMS joining hands with industry to remove RMS AND THE ENTIRE FSF board.
RMS did nothing legally wrong, that’s why he’s not in prison and there’s no investigation. Because he took no actions.
From my perspective, the “ostracize RMS” crowd appear like bigots who are attacking someone with autism for personal gain. Yes he did something potentially inappropriate, he apologized and we should work on reforming.
If there’s no forgiveness for someone who had a different opinion (he didn’t act on anything, as far as we know), then there will be no quarter. No one wants to live in a world with no recourse.
> Where I can sign to support impartial investigation.
You can sign the "support" letter.
It says clearly that RMS is not above criticism, that it welcomes discussion on all the issues, but that the smear campaign supported by the other letter is unacceptable.
Besides, notice that the promoters of the pro-ostracization letter are not open for discussion. Any discussion or move towards a compromise (e.g., by questioning RMS's fit as a leader while rejecting the lies of the letter) is ruthlessly suppressed.
I do find it worrying how people here use flagging for anything that is controversial or where the community is highly divided, flagging is not for downvoting... these things need to be discussed not marked as irrelevant or inappropriate.
> these things need to be discussed not marked as irrelevant or inappropriate.
To be fair, "these things" are being discussed here every day, with lots of comments and no intent of suppression. Maybe some users are tired of seeing the same subject appear many times per day with no actual news, and they are flagging it as a form of protest. It would be still an inappropriate usage of flagging, but somewhat understandable.
Flagging has been used for disagreement for a long time. Unfortunately, it seems that the number of controversial topics is steadily increasing so I wonder if flagging is still the optimal mechanism to handle it.
