RMS has called himself "borderline autistic". His socially clueless black and white thinking makes it look like he is far in the spectrum. RMS is anal about meanings of terms and their use. That's not working well in the current climate where words carry perceived intent. I find myself agreeing with RMS with most of the terminology and its use in this case. Women who tell stories about him paint a picture of lonely socially incompetent man who makes super creepy attempts to connect opposite sex.
I have worked in jobs where there have been very strange creepy people, both women and men. Some are angry and tense. Some are odd and talk restless or slightly disturbing stuff that make everyone uncomfortable. But if they do their work well they can stay. Others give them some room. It's called tolerance.
If RMS was just random superhacker doing his thing. I would defend him. His boss should find a position for him where he can contribute and other people should feel free to feel uncomfortable and avoid him.
But RMS is de facto leader and public figure in movement that is also political. He does not deserve the same level of consideration as normal HR headache would. Even if everything against him would be completely unjust, there is no requirement for just treatment for top leaders. They can be sacked for any reason whatsoever.
Can we please stop excusing bad behavior with some form of "oh because autism"? It's an insult to the many, many neuro-atypical people who don't say shitty, stupid things online, who don't act creepy around women, who don't have a sign on their MIT office that says "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)", who don't have a gross mattress in their office where they encourage people to lie topless, who don't try to pressure women into dating them by saying they'll kill themselves otherwise. All of those things describe RMS, things that have been mostly quietly ignored and hand-waved away for decades.
We don't have to tolerate people who make women feel unsafe and unwelcome in our (or any) industry.
You seem to be arguing the usual tired old thing: "but he's a genius and does such great work that we should tolerate the bad things he does". I really thought we'd started to move past that over the last few years.
Attributing all his behavior to his autism is wrong, you're right, but autistic people do have social problems that can influence some behavior, like the ability to pick up social cues and learn something is wrong before hearing others say it.
Also, you're doing a bait and switch, neuro-atypical covers a large swathe of people including autistic people. May be you're using it here as a mere synonym for "autistic" for lingual flare, but it includes people who are generally typical in social settings.
I agree with both of you, and I think stallman also had the misfortune here to be so beloved that people are willing to give him a pass on a lot of the things he's said.
It's absolutely true that neuro-atypical people can learn from others, even if they can't pick up on social cues the way neurotypical people can. I'm guessing stallman just goes unchallenged on much of this stuff because of the lingering effects of the rockstar syndrome in tech, where "great men," geniuses, whatever, get cut a lot of slack because of their position in the industry.
It's only recently that I've seen a shift away from prizing our jerk 10x rockstars ("hey, he's so smart he can keep the whole codebase in his head!") to valuing better-behaved people. stallman seems like he'd be even more isolated than the typical one of those, with less chance to have the rough edges smoothed off in the rock tumbler of social interaction.
Again, not an excuse, but I'm more interested in, "how did we get here?" (where "here" is a decades-long public figure questioning the wrongness of pedophilia and making jokes like the "emacs virgin" thing well into the 2000s).
My daughter who has autism constantly says things that could be considered offensive because she's not aware of sensitivities around race, gender, orientation, etc. It certainly can explain it for certain individuals. You can't say many neuro-atypical people don't say bad things so it can't be an excuse for him. "Neuro-atypical" is a huge, huge group of people who are very different.
The ultimate thing is though that as the leader of the FSF foundation his actions have broader consequences and demand a stricter scrutiny. He was given a loooong time to learn and improve, people have been talking about how he's actually kind of sexist and problematic for years.
Stallman's job as head of FSF wasn't just to be technically competent, which he has in spades, but to forward the mission of the foundation and a certain level of social acuity is a necessary part of that.
Can you link to sources regarding Stallmans behavior towards women? It’s not that I don’t believe you but because I tried to google “Richard Stallman suicide threat” and couldn’t come up with anything... I do want to believe you, but I can’t propagate information without evidence.
So far as I can tell the name "Stallman" appears nowhere in that document. (I'm not 100% sure because it seems to be a scanned PDF -- but searching for some other words I can see on the page appears to work OK.)
> Can we please stop excusing bad behavior with some form of "oh because autism"? It's an insult to the many, many neuro-atypical people who don't say shitty, stupid things online.
No it's not an insult to anyone. It's an attemoted explanation of why some neuro-atypical people behave in atypical fashion.
Are you, or the parent, a mental health professional? If not, then I'd suggest you aren't qualified to tell if he's even autistic at all, or, if he is, that his autism is what's causing the problems here, not terrible beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes. In that light, using autism as an excuse for Stallman's behavior is just an unfounded theory by an armchair psychiatrist with no business making diagnoses.
The wisdom of attempting to diagnose someone without a formal diagnosis is an entirely different issue, and I agree it is unwise.
The original claim was that saying that someone's anti-social behaviour was due to being neurological atypical, was an insult to everyone who is neurological atypical. This is clearly nonsense.
OK. Let's take an analogy. Do you believe that saying that a history of parental violence contributed to the boy to be violent in his own turn is an insult to everyone who was beaten up by their father?
I didn't read the parent's post as "excusing" Stallman at all.
I certainly would not excuse him! Nor should anybody else!
But given his stature, it's surely worth discussing and understanding him. And any attempt to do that would certainly have to include his famously black-and-white and self-described borderline autistic thinking.
Pointing out that somebody is austistic (or left-handed, or that they have psoriasis, or dyslexic, or seven feet tall, or...) and thinking about how that may affect their actions isn't excuse-making. It is empathy. It is critical thinking.
> I didn't read the parent's post as "excusing" Stallman at all.
I did. To me, it says "I've known a lot of creepy people; as long as they get their work done, it's ok". And I don't agree with that.
> self-described borderline autistic thinking.
That's another thing: has he actually been diagnosed? If not, well, he may still be autistic, but that just sounds like RMS himself hiding behind a shield of autism that he's crafted himself, which is pretty low.
> Pointing out that somebody is austistic and thinking about how that may affect their actions isn't excuse-making. It is empathy. It is critical thinking.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what was written. The parent even said "if RMS was some random superhacker doing his thing" he'd defend him. To me, that's excuse-making, not empathy or critical thinking.
But I do agree that autism can certainly explain some behaviors, and it's worth trying to understand people, even though the explanations may not excuse the behavior. The parent's post just did not strike me as that.
> "but he's a genius and does such great work that we should tolerate the bad things he does". I really thought we'd started to move past that over the last few years.
Nobody thinks this of RMS. He's a competent developer who was in the right place at the right time to found a new ideology: The idea that software should work for the user, the only way for software to do so is to empower the user to also be a developer themselves. That's all.
Being competent himself wasn't a sufficient condition for anyone to listen to him, but it was necessary.
This isn't about disagreement; it's about creating a hostile environment for women at MIT and continuing to do so for years. I'm not prepared to tolerate things like that.
If we want to talk about disagreement...
He only recently recanted (with quite suspicious timing) his view that pedophilia is fine if the child gives consent. No, I'm not going to tolerate that view. I wouldn't want to work for someone that had that view.
In the email thread under discussion, he wanted to redefine "sexual assault" and "child rape" to something that agrees more with his sense of linguistic purity. No, that's not ok.
At some point, when people keep having disgusting views, and won't change them, you give up on them entirely. It's just not worth the effort anymore.
It seems to me that nobody who remains within the bounds of the law, but consistently flirts with the bounds of polite society deserves no respect from polite society but every bit of due process in a nation of laws. So the only matter that seems of any value is constraining the scope of 'bad behavior' within the context of polite society.
Hand waving and quietly ignoring is the mark of tolerance. But one wonders exactly how polite society is. One certainly presumes the existence of both knights for justice and hot ladies in a nation of millions. What society are we talking about?
I don't expect MIT to be any more representative of society than the NFL. It is a magnet for extreme people who defer common sense and common acceptance in search of very particular goals. I wonder if we were to get rid of Stallman and replace him, deserving as he must be, for a bust in our Hall of Fame if our society could resist defaming his very image and existence.
It is you and those like you that make people feel unsafe and unwelcome. RMS is quirky and weird and he says what many don't feel safe to talk about. The recent assault based not on fact or principle but rather implied (assumed)intent is a farce and wont lead to good things. Tech is dead and RMS is a fallen king. Take your PC bullying and wreck havoc over everything the geeks or "autists" created. I'm moving on but the industry is no longer a place of inclusion and all of the safe guards put in place were not enough to stop societies wicked. Enjoy eating each other in your Brave New World.
And yet, women have been driven out of CSAIL for years by RMS's (and others') behavior (I know several, personally). And he's only being driven out now.
>But RMS is de facto leader and public figure in movement that is also political
What does this mean ? He is a leader of an organisation related to software freedom (or more pedantically, the choice of licences used for software). How is it relevant ? All you are saying is, "Famous people can't talk like that".
* General principle that people in influential positions have less protections and should have more scrutiny than average John Doe. Celebrities and influential people have less legal privacy protections.
* People are free to speak as individuals, but they may not be free to speak while they have public position in the organization. Elected members of the organization like FSF don't have the same protections as employers have. They represent the organization even outside the work. Their public position gives them a platform where what they say goes trough bullhorn and private becomes public and reflects the organization. If something they say harms the organization they should go even if they are right.
There's plenty of ground between "Stallman shouldn't get a pass for years of varying grades of crappy remarks and opinions as a public leader of the FSF" and "the PyCon dongle thing got way out of hand..."
I agree that they are very different. The GP said that the famous people should be very careful about what they say or have the risk of being fired. I only wanted to notice that everyone should be very careful about what they say or have the risk of being fired.
Celebrities do have protection from any injustice, and mob rule is unjust. They can't demand punishment for other people for mild disturbance, but that's all, they have all other rights and protections.
If you are the leader for an organisation focused on advocacy (i.e. raising awareness and communicating), then your words become de facto the words of the organisation, even with comments not related to your organisations purpose.
If your leader appears to advocate pedophilia, then your organisation no longer becomes "that organisation that advocates for free software", but "that organisation run by a pedophile apologist".
He doesn't advocate pedophilia. Nothing has changed for years. Are you advocating it?
He has just been completely misrepresented by some popular media as supporting statutory rape, and you are fueling the fire.
It is pure bullshit - the journalists that write (or publications that publish) headlines that completely reverse meaning should be held accountable for their lies.
It is libel: make it appear Richard said she was willing when he definitely said she was coerced (within the exact same paragraph as the "quote"). Seems she was 18 too - any organisation publishing clearly slanderous headings designed for sensation and payment for eyeballs should be punished.
I disagree with Stallman's skepticism (I do think it harms children and I don't think children can make that choice). But that one liner does not make him a pedophilia advocate. That makes him someone who is wrong on that topic.
He didn't know what he was talking about, but felt it was okay to use his public platform to say it anyway. That's not scepticism. It's laziness. We have reams of evidence to show that paedophilia is harmful to children, and a 5 minute web search would have returned some of it.
> He didn't know what he was talking about, but felt it was okay to use his public platform to say it anyway.
You've described basically every single human being in tech I've ever met, they just don't have as big a platform. See: Musk's twitter feed, for instance.
If this is so easy, please provide links to research, preferably not done by a clearly biased organization. (E.g. not IICSA) Books are acceptable too, as long as they're research.
There are only a handful of case studies of really bad cases I'm aware of. And they're not that exacting in follow-up.
Note research, not opinion pieces.
Good quality papers. I found just a handful. I'm having trouble fishing then out from the thousands of opinion pieces.
Edit: I found one credible meta-analysis so far, and the results are not good. Most of abuse is not reported. Impact is not known, how handling of it is done is unknown to affect severity.
It took him a decade to retract that statement, said retraction conveniently occurring when this shitstorm about Epstein is reaching a crescendo. Retractions and apologies with such timing appear awfully convenient and insincere.
The point is it doesn't really matter what he advocates. He's using his position of power (given to him to promote Free Software) to push his controversial political opinions instead. It doesn't matter if those opinions are right or wrong. What matters is they are controversial and that he's using his platform to express those opinions.
If he said this anonymously or in private it would've been fine. The problem is him using his platform for stuff that it's not meant to be used for. So now they're taking away his platform. Seems fair to me.
Just picking away at the 'what matters is that they are controversial' statement - that isn't in Stallman's control and it relies on 'everyone knowing' something and evidently without people ever being able to discuss it or test out ideas once they have reached a certain level of respectability. Stallman wasn't trying to make this an international topic of discussion. Important people are going to be wrong about things and calling for resignations is not a sustainable solution if it isn't directly in their line of expertise.
Everyone bar nobody has formed an opinion on an important topic that is completely wrong at some point in their life. To correct their opinion, they will need to talk to somebody who will explain why it is wrong.
This wasn't Stallman trying to use his position on the FSF to spread his opinions, he was using his position at MIT to try and defend a colleague to other academics. And what you are describing is an unreasonable standard to hold anyone to if a topic isn't supposed to be their central area of expertise.
It does matter what he advocates and it does matter whether his opinions are technically correct and incorrect. The 5-days-comment-to-resignation mob are doing damage here; and setting up terrifying dynamics. They aren't going to stop at Stallman.
The point is that it doesn't really matter what anyone actually says or thinks. If they are in the public sphere and holds power they will be got at for some hurt.
Truth doesn't count if the thing hurts someone. Intent doesn't count if harm was caused. This is a view that many here would seem absurd but which many here would also agree with.
Does this still seem fair? Is truth and intent not that important when it comes to tricky issues?
"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
--------------------------
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party
--------------------------
" There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia
Well, he started the movement and got it very far, with the dominant OS using his foundation's license. Despite his limitations. There is no one in the movement who should have the authority to sack him.
He said things as a certain role model or in a setup where he shouldn't.
It's just reasonable to remove him from those positions.
Independly I find it very weird what he was saying nonetheless and for this he falls under a category of humans which I don't think are worth it to give such amount of support.
There are other people out there which are worth it more.
I stopped working with people who might be technical good or very good but dicks. I hate working with dicks. There is no amount of brilliance which justifice being a dick.
So the lesson is: Don't selflessly give your work away for nothing out of idealism lest it improve the world in some fashion all out of proportion to the budget involved because, if you do, we shall surely expect your head on a pike at some point for some wholly unrelated personal gaff.
Rather than, you know, finding some humane, compassionate approach to dealing with the personal shortcomings of someone who has done so very much for the world.
No, the lesson is: don't treat women poorly, period. And if you happen to be a notable public figure and treat women poorly, it'll be that much worse for you. Giving your work away for free and being idealistic doesn't give you a pass on bad behavior.
I would agree that the severity of RMS's remarks regarding Epstein/Minsky is lower than the press is making it out to be. But Stallman's bad behavior stretches back decades, and this oddly-shaped, not-entirely-correct straw happened to finally break the camel's back. Good riddance.
The thing is, people told him about his behavior for years, and he never changed his ways. When conferences added that speakers were not supposed to flirt or give sexually suggestive comments to attendants, he circumvented that by asking women to go across the street and gave them his "pleasure cards" [1].
After almost 30 years of people giving him a pass and trying to make him understand, I am glad that he is getting some reckoning. His views are abhorrent and he gives no indication he is willing to change them.
He gave men his "pleasure card", too. [1]
He put in books he signed (for a man in this example.) [2]
The text is:
sharing good books, good food and exotic music and dance
tender embraces
unusual sense of humor
[contact details]
There is perfectly benign interpretation of this expressing the things from which he derives pleasure. The most plausible and available interpretation of "pleasure card" is a dad joke level word play on "business card", especially when considering his role in de-commercializing software.
Talking to women isn't a crime. If he didn't take no for an answer or asked women out in inappropriate circumstances, that's a problem; but we have no accounts of him doing that. All we have here is an Nth hand story [3] in which he supposedly left a conference with a woman (singular, you made it plural.) and then gave her his card. If we choose to imagine there was romantic intent, a) there's no suggestion he coerced her into leaving and b) he took pains to respect the conference's CoC. Even this extremely reaching accusation has zero implication that he disrespected an individual's volition. Sage Sharp's indictment that he "skirted around the conference's CoC" is bizarre unless the real intent is that men like Stallman should be closeted heterosexuals.
There are numerous aspects to all this hand wringing about his cards and interest in meeting women that one has to choose to view through a prurient lens to make it sexual. Even then, it's only problematic to a puritanical world view in which it's wrong for people to be sexual beings and individuals are dispossessed of their self-determination.
Who says his head got lopped off? He was forced to resign his position at MIT, which seems fair given past bad behavior there (plus he really has no useful relevance there anyway), and he was forced to resign as head of the FSF, which is perhaps debatable, but not the end of the world.
This just happened. Let's check in with him in six months, and see if he's still breathing. If his experience is like many of the shitty men whose misbehavior has been unmasked as part of the MeToo movement, I'm sure he'll end up back on his feet at some point, whether he deserves to or not.
Because college is where women are driven out of computer science, by behavior from professors and peers. If you want to talk about fields where men are driven out (and they do exist: primary school teaching and nursing come to mind) go to a thread about those. But either way, derailing this discussion doesn't help.
The men interviewed for the paper disagreed that discrimination, social barriers, stereotypes, or other forms of injustice play a role. ("I don’t feel that there is any injustice… men who want to teach, are able to. It’s not like we’re being held down.")
It also points out that a greater number of men than women choose to go into primary education during college, which is the opposite of what we'd expect if they were being driven out by professors and peers.
"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution,
"prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest
and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these
acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
--------------------------
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm
seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by
the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party
--------------------------
" There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do
not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia
Yes, precisely this. It's a controversial opinion, certainly that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but it also seems to be a considered one. Notably absent from posts where people pasting these quotes is any argument against the claims made by RMS. We are apparently meant to assume he is both wrong and malevolent merely for holding an opinion we find uncomfortable.
Who owns a corpse? If the former inhabitant of the then-living body had designated a particular heir via a will or similar legal instrument, one might acquire consent from that heir?
Yes. That's that's my point. You seem to think that I'm contradicting myself. Either I'm expressing myself badly or you are misunderstanding my argument.
You write this like it's an insult, but with a dozen stuff and million dollar budget he's done more for the world than most of us could do with 1000 staff and a billion dollar budget.
I wrote it as a poke at the parent poster who suggested that top leaders should expect to be held to different standards than the rest of us when speaking of a man who enjoyed none of the perks of being a "top leader" while contributing a lot.
> That's not working well in the current climate where words carry perceived intent.
I agree that there's a current climate that's even less amenable to open discussion than at other times. However, I disagree that words carrying perceived intent is something new. Any time you make an assertion about individual facts of a particular situation, people's first assumption is going to be that you're pushing the narrative best supported by that assertion. Telling people what you're not saying will continue to be important even if the current climate improves.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm stating a general principle, not saying anything about what RMS did or didn't say, or did or didn't intend to say. I don't have time to dig into all that.
> But RMS is de facto leader and public figure in movement that is also political. He does not deserve the same level of consideration as normal HR headache would. Even if everything against him would be completely unjust, there is no requirement for just treatment for top leaders. They can be sacked for any reason whatsoever.
If his past behavior was sufficient justification for his sacking, then that should be enough. However, that is not why he was sacked. He was sacked on the basis of false allegations, and as an attempt by MIT to deflect from their own complicity in the Epstein scandal.
This is not (only) about finding a place for weirdo super-hackers to contribute to society (without bothering people too much) but about the truth dammit.
> He does not deserve the same level of consideration as normal HR headache would. Even if everything against him would be completely unjust, there is no requirement for just treatment for top leaders. They can be sacked for any reason whatsoever.
The only people who deserve less consideration are those that pick and choose who to treat justly.
"When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him."
As someone actually autistic, he doesn't get to blame being a douchecanoe on being autistic.
> His socially clueless black and white thinking makes it look like he is far in the spectrum.
Then _learn_. Also, we're not talking about not getting social cues about when it's okay to start talking, we're talking his considered and repeated position on issues such as sexual assault, and his _actual actions_ towards teenagers.
> But if they do their work well they can stay. Others give them some room. It's called tolerance.
Great tolerance for the people your creeps chase out or abuse, thanks. You actually do have to pick, and if you pick people like RMS, you pick against all the people that can't - and shouldn't have to - deal with an environment people like RMS create.
Sad to see that you're being downvoted. Richard Stallman's insane statements about child abuse have nothing to do with autism. The man has defended pedophilia and apparently also harassed women throughout his career. Absolutely disgusting behaviour that has nothing to do with being neuro-atypical.
> As someone actually autistic, he doesn't get to blame being a douchecanoe on being autistic.
Was he a douchecanoe? Is that even a helpful label for you to apply to him? Was he claiming he behaved / behaves the way you think he does solely because he's borderline autistic, or are you extrapolating?
The President "should" also be forced to resign, but the power politics does not support that for a whole host of reasons. It's extraordinary to watch "Christian" evangelical moralists defend him, but in some ways that's the logical conclusion of their moral contortions.
Then again, if someone believes a man in the sky created the world in 6 days, claims the earth is 6000 years old, ... , what stops them from defending the POTUS? Why expect logic where no other logic seems to apply?
It doesn't really matter for most decision wether the universe came to being 6e3, 6e9 or 12e9 years ago, or always has been ... unless you are a geologist.
That’s the standard for being “canceled” now? An accusation? Anybody can accuse people of things. We have courts and the presumption of innocence for a reason.
The courts are for determining whether someone should go to jail. But anyone can draw conclusions about whether or not they want to deal with someone who is accused of a crime.
Someone might be accused of child molestation, but never stood trial. Would a parent then be obligated to be ok with the accused being alone with their children since 'hey he's innocent until proven guilty'? Should someone who had been credibly accused of many instances of sexual misconduct be trusted as if they are a model citizen?
The presumption of innocence is there to ensure someone gets a fair trial in court. It doesn't mean everyone else has to ignore evidence of criminal conduct until a conviction comes down. It also doesn't always mean that someone who was found not guilty by a criminal court, didn't actually do what they were accused of. It just means the court didn't find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
By evicting him, and finding someone who's better, making the parameters more clear each time.
Who can say what would have been in place if a particular leader hadn't? They take oxygen. Some would even say we should move away from the model of a few leaders representing many.
A nomination to one of the two major political parties says plenty enough about the culture that allows this while targeting people like Stallman who haven't actually hurt anyone for their unusual opinions.
It's unfortunate that scarlet letter offences are still alive and well in today's culture.
Normally, when someone engages in behavior seen as offensive, the procedure is to pressure the person to apologize and mend his ways, and only get rid of him if he refuses to do so.
But when a "scarlet letter" offence is involved, we jump straight to the punishment phase, removing the person outright with no judicial process. This is completely backwards, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. It brings a chilling effect on everyone, because suddenly people start to realize that they're living under the Sword of Damocles, which could destroy them at any moment without warning. You can never be sure if something you say or do is going to get you publicly pilloried in future, and destroy your career, friendships, and reputation in the blink of an eye. Far better to just sit quiet and never say anything that might offend someone. Far better not to participate at all.
Mob justice always turns ugly in the end. That's why we have courts.
I'm normally 100% on board with condemning this Malthusian environment that has sprung up in the last couple years, but I don't believe that Richard Stallman is a complete victim in this scenario.
He has a long history of using forums meant for technology discussion to promote borderline (and that's generous) social opinions, and of being openly hostile to people who don't tow his line. In this instance he ridiculously downplayed the most egregious instances of sex trafficking of minors, by a horridly evil individual... who happened to donate almost a million dollars to him!
His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein.
For all of us that don't worship Stallman - I consider him a net negative to the FOSS movement - this has been a long time coming. It would have been a deserved resignation in a normal social environment.
"His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein."
Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology.
And this kind of tar-and-feathering is precisely why we need official processes for this sort of thing. Official reprimands leading to termination if unfixed, like all civilized peoples do. This ensures that it's made crystal clear what's acceptable and what's not, with time to mend one's ways. The alternative is arbitrary terminations, which makes everyone insecure.
>Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology.
Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life?
If someone is a jerk, I don't have to maintain a chain-of-custody for the evidence I use to determine that person is a jerk, and I don't have to have sworn testimony from reliable witnesses to apply the jerk label, and I certainly don't need the opinions of a jury of said jerk's peers.
Here's a job-keeping pro-tip, free of charge, for everyone: Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.
>That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.
I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching.
As far as watching what you say, that is the world:
1. As it has always existed.
2. It exists today.
3. Will always exist until the end of time itself.
And that will never, ever, change.
Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.
Moral authoritarianism is quite the dangerous thing. It is at the root of every single 'evil' of times past. One has to keep in mind that these evils of times past of course did not see themselves, in general, as evils. Instead they were simply enforcing their world view which, from their perspective, was the 'right' one. It's much easier to do awful things to people when you convince yourself they deserve it.
To take one of the more innocuous examples from the past consider the Red Scares. It was fundamentally driven by people believing that they have the moral high ground against a certain view. Communism is bad and therefore it was okay to do bad things to people who held positive views of such. And it was simply 'common sense' that supporting communism in any way, shape, or form was an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. And I use that as an example only to avoid any rousing of emotion but the exact same logic drove the KKK, Nazis, and nearly every group, sinner and saint alike, throughout time. Moral authoritarianism is again, a very dangerous thing.
And I certainly do not agree with you on this was or will be the way of society. Words and actions are distinct. I think an ideal society would have no tolerance for intolerant actions but an unlimited tolerance of words. Indeed this is even what the actual quote, often egregiously bastardized and misused by the most intolerant of today's society, on the 'paradox of tolerance' fundamentally suggests. Even looking back now at the Red Scare we can generally see how quaint our intolerance was. There's no need to name and shame communists - the view itself is simply not supported by enough of society to matter. And if it does become supported by enough of society? Then we try it, almost certainly fail, and continue on our disjointed path "forwards" as always.
> There's no need to name and shame communists - the view itself is simply not supported by enough of society to matter.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
As Scott points out in https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/02/social-censorship-the-... censorship is mostly used against groups we think are dangerous (mostly because they actually have a fairly large amount of support). Someone advocating that going to church should be mandatory and divorce and blasphemy should be illegal will get eye rolls, not anger.
>I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.
Many people seem to be complaining about this.
As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying:
"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”and he should face no consequences."
or
"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” and he should face no consequences."
Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".
It seems perfectly consistent to me that someone worried about people being fired for controversial opinions would not give such an opinion non-anonymously. I don't see what point you're making.
I think the user you are responding to is attempting to undermine anything that can loosely be construed as a defense of Stallman. A bit of a dirty tactic, IMO, but the lines of battle have clearly been drawn.
Yeah this is like the authoritarians who claim that if Snowden really feared for his safety as a whistleblower, then he would be happy to be renditioned to a secret blacksite dungeon for punishment by the TLAs he has offended. Does not compute...
Here's another pro-tip: If you make dishonest or negligent accusations about another person, such that said person suffers materially you can probably* sued for defamation.
Who jumped straight to the punishment phase? What punishment was doled out? "Removed outright" from what? MIT?
RMS chose to step down himself. That was his decision. Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob".
Furthermore, stepping down from MIT is not destruction you're playing it up as being. People have done similar (and of course, worse!) things and, after being the subject of some number of embarrassing articles on the web and some larger number of angry tweets, are currently living their lives with new jobs just fine. RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy.
If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake, like the US-Mexico border or Hong Kong.
>Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob".
The mob pressured MIT and the FSF to remove him from his positions. It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats.
>RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy. If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake...
You could just easily say "Hong Kong doesn't have it that bad, they have food and shelter. Focus on conditions that are actually bad, like starving child soldiers in Africa."
This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.
It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats.
If you think the brass at MIT are in any physical danger from a bunch of angry tweeters, I don't know what to tell you.
This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.
No, that's a deflection. Someone choosing to step down from their job is not an issue that can, as the parent post puts it, "destroy them at any moment without warning". Being a starving child soldier in Africa is, being locked in a cage in a foreign land is.
Yup. There are many things I disagree with Stallman on, but I still can’t get behind mob mentality accusations and indictments. But in this day and age people want instant retribution for wrongs as well as perceived wrongs and are perfectly willing to bypass due process. Just fire them! Now! Someone said they said something bad!
On the other hand even with this resignation he doesn't appologize for anything. He could even have made his point of thinking it's a misunderstanding and appologize, but didn't.
"Headlines say that I defended Epstein," Stallman wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding."
> When a person tells someone else "I'm sorry that you feel that way", they are not acknowledging the potential role they might have played in making them feel this way. Instead, it is more like they are absolving themselves of responsibility, and are showing apparent sympathy that the person who is complaining might be upset for some abstract, and potentially irrational reason. It not only fails to acknowledge the potential role played by the speaker (or who they might represent), but this phrase is actually used to position the speaker as an innocent actor who has had little or no influence over the current situation.
> He could even have made his point of thinking it's a misunderstanding and appologize, but didn't.
> feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.
The statement that RMS did not attempt to make an apology even one that is a false apology is 100% made up, he did in fact make a false apology.
My point is that like many people on here the person making the argument believes RMS did wrong and they are now inventing reasons to justify their belief, its not an honest argument.
You are ignoring or not reading the argument I was responding to which establishes the honesty of an apology as irrelevant. This is another example of a dishonest argument because it is moving the goal posts of the argument again to justify your prior beliefs.
No he didn't. Making a false apology requires some form of deception or misdirection whereby it isn't obvious that you are denying any responsibility.
For example "I'm sorry you feel that way - but I'm not at fault!" Is not a false apology, since it is very clear that you are denying responsibility, despite that fact that it contains the triggering substring "I'm sorry you feel that way".
> who has had little or no influence over the current situation.
Stallman had no control over being misquoted.
He also didn't say "I'm sorry that you feel that way" - He specifically mentions he was misquoted, leaving no doubt that he is not apologizing for the cause of the offense - People were offended by the misquotes, not the original statements.
That's a "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. Which is not an apology at all.
Stallman decided it was a great idea to, in the wrong place at the wrong time and in response to a protest regarding someone he knew (Minsky, not Epstein), construct a hypothetical that exonerated Minsky and then judge that protest, again publicly, through that hypothetical. That's not a "believe he said" thing. That's what he did. He got tossed out on his ear for that and that's a thing he did.
Just so you know, the central victim of this scandal did not (to my knowledge) actually accuse Minsky of having sex with her - only that she was coerced by Epstein to make the offer. An offer which another witness testified was turned down. If true then the protest against Minsky has no basis (or at least much less).
Now, RMS then did construct a hypothetical based on his knowledge of Minsky's character. Note that nowhere in his hypothetical did he either defend Epstein or assert that the victim was in fact willing - both of which were things that he was accused of doing. He then insisted that people be more precise in their speech, which is exactly what you should do if you want actual justice.
Kevin Hart apologized for some offensive jokes, he apologized as advised by the academy, and still got cancelled. Apologizing only serves to augment the conviction of a mob intent on finding fault.
No, initially he refused to apologize, then he withdrew from the hosting gig, then he actually apologized, more than once.
Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.
You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel, another film called Fatherhood and has been in commercials since the Oscars.
It seems like you're gravely overestimating how much power angry people on Twitter have.
Cancel culture may be running out of steam, but did Kevin Hart or whomever else know ex ante (meaning right after the scandal outbreak) what they were going to face.
As it stands now outcomes vary wildly. Some people like Kevin Spacey were literally erased from movies that were already filmed; some others have just claimed back their place (maybe not their peak fame) on their own like Louis CK. And then there are neutral outcomes like the one you mention.
And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.
> And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.
He was caught framing innocent white men for hate crimes. He was going to send people to prison to boost his 'clout'. It's not just 'something'. It was a vile crime
There was actually an article on HN recently about just this: executives who retained their position or high status (regardless of employer) despite "scandal" did not admit fault. Those that did never recovered.
Even from a law perspective many lawyers will advise against apologizing[1] to a victim because the apology can be used as evidence of guilt in a civil case. I think it works the same way for most situations including online mobs.
—Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes.
[1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers.
For any English people reading this in England: this advice is both wrong and harmful. If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise. You're not admitting liability and it doesn't open you up to further legal action. Not apologising may in fact increase damages against you.
> An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.
This is especially true if you're a healthcare professional or work in a healthcare organisation. Your professional registration tells you to apologise; your organisations registration body tells them and you to apologise; your medical defence body tells you to apologise; a bunch of arms-length bodies are clear that you need to apologise if you do something wrong.
> If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise.
mc32 wasn't saying an apology will increase damages, just that it is often seen as an admission of guilt. In some places (e.g. Canada) an apology is not a sign of guilt. But you seem to be saying something different?
It wasn't a misunderstanding caused by his poor wording; It was caused by poor (and possibly malicious) misquoting.
He has nothing to apologise for in this respect, but he does say:
> I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.
This could be seen as an apology, "I'm sorry" often is; but in context you can see it is not. It is literally "I'm sorry I could not prevent this hurt" without any sense that He is responsible.
Ironically, this sentiment only brought on more criticism: The claim that this was a "false apology", i.e. something masquerading as an apology despite not being one - but that was Stallmans intention, it is thwarted by all the other sentences in the same paragraph that make it clear he is being misquoted.
While redemption is one of the themes in the book sadly the internet has not quite developed that level of sophistication so we are stuck with denouncement/punishment.
I support a theory that cases such as this are one of the main reason Trump got elected - some voters were just fed up. I also think that he'll get elected again, cause Dems are concentrating on impeachment instead of trying to understand & connect with his deplorable voters.
By summer 2017, it was clear that RussiaRussiaRussia was all they had in store for the next several years. At that point, I knew Trump would be reelected. This is a fairly awful person who has actually done a number of impeachable things, many of them after he took office. Yet, they chose to dwell on something that was obviously false to the average voter. Why would they do that? I think the answer to that is related to the fact that Biden is the current pick. If in 2016 we had made a (short) list of candidates likely to lose to Trump, Biden and HRC would have vied closely for the top choice.
RMS is not encountering any judicial or criminal sanction.
He is merely encountering actual consequences for saying absurd, indefensible things -- and, likely, also finally encountering consequences for being a well-known source of creepy behavior towards women for a very long time. People lose jobs all the time for less.
Yeah, he's done some good things. And maybe (MAYBE) he's actually not neurotypical. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on being a creep forever.
Do you not think people have tried to get RMS to stop talking about how injust statory rape is, or that he should probably stop talking about how child porn is ok?
This isn't a one off and he's one of the least likely people to mend his ways.
Can you explain how he's being censored? This event has caused his comments to be circulated more than ever.
Free speech is a right, but it's not a shield. He can continue to express his opinions, and the public will continue to have the right to object to them. If public opinion on a person is negative, companies will not want to associate with that person. That's the way society has been and will continue to be. This isn't inherently good, as seen with things like race/sexuality--but conflating the long struggle of the LGBT community with one man's archaic thoughts on pedophilia is frankly disgusting.
Censorship isn't just done by stopping someone broadcasting a view, it is also done by punishing those you express that view as a deterrant to any others out there who would want to promote or broadcast that view.
Censorship can be done by governments, institutions, individuals or society as a whole.
I'm not really conflating the LGBT history with RMS views, merely noting that attempting to surpress non-majority views can be bad by using them as an example.
>> "Normally, when someone engages in behavior seen as offensive, the procedure is to pressure the person to apologize and mend his ways, and only get rid of him if he refuses to do so."
How many years and incidents is enough to move to removal?
The challenge is: there is ample evidence that misogyny (and similar offenses) has been unacceptable for years, but it continues. Part of the me-to movement, the election of Trump, ( and the Epstein blowback) is that we need to just stop. And that's why the pressure is there if people can't understand that this sort of behavior in unacceptable in 2019, they need to GTFO.
As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter?
I agree with the principle of people being able to change their minds and we should accommodate that, but I also have a hard time giving a huge credit when a 66 year old man says that contrary to everything he's written on the subject, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong.
I agree, it should always matter. How much it matters would certainly depend on things like that. So on that scale, it would take a lot more than "I've now learned that sex with children is actually wrong" before I consider that person redeemed. But that's just me.
For the other statements, I dont think he's "endorsing" it, he's raising questions. I'm not AT ALL on the same boat as him wrt this topic, but I dont mind a discussion on this topic. I consider that the basis of democracy.
Also, from this recent interview on the register it shows he changed his mind on this topic: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."
But when a 66 year old man says that he has now learned that sex with children is wrong, do you just wipe the past clean and forget that anything ever happened? Would it be wrong for those past views to have any effect, now that he's changed his mind?
There is a comment of his talking about "voluntary pedophilia." This is likely (very likely) a misuse of terms, though -- having had this discussion with others on the Internet, they do not usually intend pedophilia, which is an attraction to the prepubescent. Prepubescent children have no sex drive and their interest in sex is usually taken to be a sign of sexual abuse. Consequently it is hard to see voluntary pedophilia as something that can happen.
He probably means hebephilia (11-14) or ephebophilia (14-19). In some countries (Italy, Germany) or cultures the age of consent is as low as 14. Some are perhaps lower. The strict liability concerning statutory rape may also be different, which is likely what he wanted to bring into question.
There are currently people serving sentences for sexual crimes they "committed" after being lied to by their partner.
> The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Well, there is big difference between 'saying it should be legal' and endorsing.
For example, i think that drinking alcohol and smoking pot should be legal, but also think it is stupid thing to do and definitely would not endorse that.
it's rather interesting how all the information technology (social media, etc...) is slowly moving our culture towards increasing self-censorship. One has to have the right opinion or stay quiet.
Having the wrong opinion about certain topics is getting more expensive. Stay away from taboos or else... never mind the fact that what we regard as wrong changes across different societies over time.
Weirdly all the information technology is steering towards being more similar in our opinions and in what we can say without facing consequences.
Recently I started to thing about how in spite of having the ability to share, and change, and store information better and with more ease than ever, we seem to be going in the opposite direction.
Instead of having more transparent institutions, everything is getting more "opaque" (so to speak) towards the public (even it this is happening due to overload).
does anyone remember "information wants to be free"? I don't think anybody says that anymore, but I remember reading that a bunch on slashdot in the early 00s
> One has to have the right opinion or stay quiet.
I don't really see how this is so hard. Don't treat women poorly, in person or online. Don't talk authoritatively about subjects you don't understand, especially when those subjects (like rape and human trafficking) cause people intense pain.
If you really do want to act this way, then you probably should exercise some self-censorship, and rethink your views, perhaps.
> ...in what we can say without facing consequences.
What you say should have consequences. No one should censor you (what you say should be up to you), but you don't live in a vacuum. What you say has a real effect on others, and if that effect is bad, you should be held accountable.
I don't really see how this is so hard. Don't treat women poorly, in person or online. Don't talk authoritatively about subjects you don't understand, especially when those subjects (like rape and human trafficking) cause people intense pain.
Morality is constantly changing and what is considered treating someone poorly changes too. More recently it appears to be changing faster than ever. That can make it hard to remain with the bounds of what is in the current instance of time considered socially acceptable by the majority. There is no absolute morality even though it may seem like it if you are thinking with the span of an hour or a day. Stretch it out and it's a constant shifting. In any case, I don't think anyone should be silenced. If they say something that the majority feels is foolish, they can be considered a fool, or a debate can be had to convince them of why they may be wrong, but to silence externally, or increasingly, self silencing with self censorship, in my opinion is dangerous as that means ideas cannot be discussed openly.
> What you say has a real effect on others, and if that effect is bad, you should be held accountable.
Speech is just a tool to share a thought, if a thought effects some one it is for them to bare alone.
The idea that sharing thoughts should have consequences upsets me greatly, maybe it shouldn't but it does. Your speech has filled me with bad feelings and troubling thoughts is that burden mine to bare alone or should I hold you responsible?
Yes, people have to grow to not be stupid assholes. On the other side, if people think you're a stupid asshole, they should be allowed to cut off contact.
Thus you probably want to avoid growing in the only global circle we have. With smaller circles, getting cut off (as always has happened) is less of big deal.
In a similar vein, I'm fine with scientists exploring "IQ of the races" in their work. But going on a podcast and sharing that with a more general audience while not understanding its role in broader society while washing concerns away with "this just facts" is fine to have consequences.
You seem to be advocating keeping the public ignorant. Presumably this only applies in cases the knowledge in question is an instance of the adage "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"?
Do you think having norms that advocate hiding knowledge that someone could argue is dangerous from the public will do more good than harm and won't backfire in the form of public distrust of experts?
I think that in general animals and people learn most efficiently by making mistakes. Sure, I am talking about mistakes that do not kill us. But even mistakes that kill, have hopefully a learning effect on those who observe.
I think as well that we as a society should learn to be more empathic, more tolerant, to learn how to forgive, and to avoid mob judgements.
Both, are my opinions. I don't know if there are any studies or references to this.
Sure, that's what "listening and asking questions" is. But in the beginning, when you know very little, your default should be to absorb, not to espouse.
Easy: don't speak authoritatively. Acknowledge the limits of your knowledge and invite better information from people who know better.
I would advise not speaking authoritatively even if you are an authority. People are less likely to offer suggestions and ideas you didn't consider if you act like you know what you're talking about. I learn all kinds of things by not sounding as certain as I usually am.
...they said, authoritatively. I'm a work in progress.
I get that you're being sarcastic, but... yes? It's fine to talk about topics where you're not an expert, but if you want to talk authoritatively about something, yes, I'd expect something at least approaching expert level.
Then, pray tell, what qualifies you to state your authoritative opinion on what we are permitted to talk about? We would like to see your credentials. /s
Self-censorship is a norm which always existed as a social behavior, even online. In a small geeky world of early days of Internet, when community of connected people was small and more homogeneous, it was easier to touch certain topics without receiving strong reactions, but it didn’t mean self-censorship did not exist. It just concerned different things and the worst that could happen was a ban on the forum or IRC channel. It’s still the case for unimportant people: no one cares what random Joe says online. Everyone expects that opinion leader conforms to the norms of society - hence all those crazy scientists are being ostracized for spreading nonsense outside their field of research.
Phpbb forums didn't go away because of self censorship, they were simply replaced with bigger sites like Reddit. If you're trying to create a community around a niche topic, a subreddit is substantially easier to create than deploying and maintaining a forum.
I was not aware that phpbb forums disappeared; I regularly read three of them that are all quite active. Yes, there are subreddit counterparts, but the reddit versions are mostly filled with crappy karma-seeking memes and wildly off-topic discussions.
The phpbb forums tend to be a lot more ruthless in self-moderation and probably a fair amount of gatekeeping too. But the content is significantly better than reddit, which I believe is a source of pride for many of the participants. I also get the impression that there is a growing sense of “coolness” using a crappy outdated UX. I predict the return and rise of the niche community sites will happen before its total disappearance.
I think what is perceived by a community as right or wrong changes as the composition of the community changes...I mean Trump doesn't self-censor because he reflects the values of his broader base and his base eats up whatever he says....RMS' hugs and kisses, free love, anything goes attitude might have been ok during the hippie era of the 70s and 80s during the formative years of his career but does not reflect the values and sensibilities of today's broader development community....which means he needed to adapt or step down.
-- The Dark knight quote - "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain" seems apt in this scenario.
I just don't have 1-1s with anyone I manage. Don't want problems for having 1-1s with women, don't want discrimination accusations for having 1-1s with men. No one can accuse me of anything if everything happens in an open office with plenty of witnesses.
> No one can accuse me of anything if everything happens in an open office with plenty of witnesses.
If you won't have one-on-ones over issues that are personal and sensitive, and force them to be dealt with “in an open office with plenty of witnesses”, then, yeah, there will probably be things you can be accused of on that basis alone.
Good point, those are private, but I go in with the paper version of their review in that case and they sign a document at the end which states we discussed everything in the document during the meeting.
I think that it has next to nothing to do with technology. MIT was still reeling from the fall out with the Media Lab and Epstein. If it wasn't for that, they might have gotten by with a simple apology, but that wouldn't be enough at this point.
There is also a history of controversial stuff related to his time at the FSF which meant that probably wouldn't settle for a simple apology either (not that RMS seemed willing to give one).
As organisations change over time, what they need in leadership also changes. In this case, they didn't need an ideologue with a history of generating controversy, they needed someone who can keep the ship going forward so that the projects they are overseeing don't lose enough talent that they become irrelevant.
I think without heavy proponents for free software, we would be in a worse place, especially technologically. Never met a software developer that wasn't dependent on free software to learn about the fundamentals of programming and system design.
Calling him an ideologue in contrast to current pioneers in the software industry is a bit much, maybe he just had some hard principles.
> wouldn't settle for a simple apology
To whom? To those that endorsed questionable business relations that drew attention in the first place that still are in leading positions at the MIT?
> need in leadership also changes
Visionaries and thought leaders can probably have a positive influence. I doubt we will get a adequate replacement. There also is no strong leader/mentor that can make you magically smart. He would need to inspire you to learn yourself which I would argue Stallman did pretty well.
"Controversies" are seldom intellectually engaging and if you look at the core of his statements, the subject and reactions become quite ridiculous.
>Never met a software developer that wasn't dependent on free software to learn about the fundamentals of programming and system design.
You probably have been in a bubble all this time. I grew up in former Soviet Union without an internet connection with whatever software I was able to buy around the corner. It wasn't Linux and GCC, it was Windows 9x, Delphi, then MSVC, and so on.
I think the first time I've used (any) FOSS application was after 4 or 5 years of using computers. I had the fundamentals more or less covered by then.
> To whom? To those that endorsed questionable business relations that drew attention in the first place that still are in leading positions at the MIT?
Side note: Ito, at least, is out at MIT. Others may be as well.
As far as to whom, it would have been to "anyone who was harmed by his statements". This could include those at the FSF who he represented, the students and researchers at MIT, who also were associated with the statements, and to people victimised by Epstein and others like him.
It's not as hard to find someone to apologise too, as it would be for the guy to actually admit he's wrong in the first place.
He also sort of tried to apologize and ended up making it worse because he was obviously neither sorry nor interested in how to avoid doing the same thing in the future.
The wrong opinion? Stallman questions whether the victim, who he admits was coerced into sex, was actually sexually assaulted. This is an incredibly shameful take on the situation. If any politician or public figure said this statement in the past 70 years, they would have ended their career. There are no Internet vigilantes hunting down dissenters. There are people trying to downplay sexual assault. As the internet and as the tech community, we absolutely have the right to condemn public figures when they say stuff like this. That’s what free speech actually means.
If you or I said what Stallman said, but to a coworker or to the boss, we would get fired - justifiably. This is not a new concept unique to the digital age, nor is it a concept that should be done away with. The popularity of your comment depresses me deeply.
I didn't read RMS's "take" as in any way excusing what happened to Giuffre, but rather disputing whether it was accurate to accuse Marvin Minsky of "sexual assault", if from Minsky's perspective at the time nothing seemed wrong. (Sensationalist reporting and selective paraphrasing, like you've done here, has conflated the two issues.)
Suppose there's a boxer, "Joe", and he has a scheduled fight against a named opponent. It's set in a legitimate venue, is freely advertised as if the promoters have nothing to hide, includes a normal ref & audience, and then proceeds like any other boxing match, including the traditional cordialities between opponents before and after. To "Joe", nothing's wrong. But then, years later, it's discovered that the opposing boxer was coerced into fighting, perhaps with threats of violence or blackmail.
Is "Joe" now guilty of physical assault, for repeatedly punching the other boxer, even if to "Joe" at the time it seemed like a normal voluntary encounter, no seedier than any other boxing match?
Maybe RMS's take was dumb. Maybe my analogy is dumb! But it's not "shameful" to try to work out the reasonable characterizations, given Minksy's possible mental state, the law, or common-sense. It might even be possible, under formal legal definitions, for Giuffre to have been "assaulted" while at the same time Minsky's actions don't rise to the level of "assault".
The problem with your analogy is that, in reality, "Joe" was presented with a beautiful woman over 50 years younger than him who supposedly wanted to have sex with him, while at a gathering on a billionaire's private island. If "Joe" were a reasonable, non-sketchy person, the absolute best interpretation there is that she was a prostitute of questionable age, which is still pretty bad. Going along with that without asking some very hard questions would seem to be not only morally questionable, but also personally risky.
(Of course, there's also reasonable debate as to whether or not Minsky actually had sex with her. One person who was present at the gathering claims Minsky didn't.)
If Minsky didn't realize she was essentially a prostitute, he was foolish.
But how do you know Minsky didn't "ask[] some very hard questions"?
At the time of the alleged sex, 2001-2002, Epstein's cover as an investment billionaire who threw money around to win the attention/affection of young-but-legal women was still secure. He'd been a recent repeat visitor to the Clinton White House, and President Bill Clinton's multiple trips in Epstein's plane were contemporaneous or followed soon after.
The thinking at the time would have been: "If an ex-President (and husband of sitting Senator Hillary Clinton) can hobnob in public with this guy Epstein, he can't be into anything too shady, can he?"
Why is the best interpretation that she was a prostitute of questionable age as opposed to just... a prostitute?
Legitimate question, I haven't been following this closely enough to know. If it was reasonable to assume she was an adult I don't see an issue with it, but I don't have a moral objection to prostitution
RMS's take was really dumb. He may not be the right fit for the job. The example you gave with the boxer was a really good comparison, but for him to handle the topic that way is so incredibly tone-deaf and frankly, stupid.
Essentially Stallman takes issue with accusing Marvin Minsky of sexual assault because:
> The word "assaulting" presumes he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way.
And then Stallman goes on to point out there is no evidence to suggest that Minksy acted violently toward the victim, and may have been unaware that the victim had been coerced by Epstein.
Given that the definition of "assault" is "a physical attack", I can't really disagree with him from a purely semantic perspective. And I would agree that there are other terms terms such as "statutory rape" and "soliciting prostitution" that may better describe what Minsky is accused of.
Is it "shameful" for me to see some merit in his argument?
I think this is all missing the point. RMS may have been technically correct about what happened, but he chose to speak up at the wrong time, about the wrong topic, and derailed the conversation into a diversion that didn't add any value.
And to make matters worse, he tried to quibble about the definitions of "sexual assault" and "statutory rape", which is pretty insulting and hurtful to people who have been victims of those situations.
Now, I don't necessarily see that this should definitively add up to RMS being forced out of MIT and the FSF, but this, combined with decades of awful behavior around women and some pretty messed up attitudes around what he called "voluntary pedophilia", is an understandable camel's-back-breaking straw.
It's a misapplied kind of pedantry anyway; he can quibble with what he thinks "assault" means but "sexual assault" has a legal definition.
It also confuses me to see people talk about stallman's language tricks as pedantry when he spends a lot of energy redefining terms or trying to pull out alternate meanings -- kind of the opposite of pedantry. Or a pedantry against his private dictionary.
Sexual assault does not have “a” legal definition. It has many different and often conflicting legal definitions depending on which state you happen to be in. Things that might factor in would be the victim’s age, whether the defendant knew the victim’s age, the type of sexual act, etc.
Laws are notoriously complex (it’s why we have lawyers), and if you are going cite “a legal definition” that conflicts with the common definition of a word (e.g. assault), I think that carries a burden of actually citing the applicable law that was violated. But that’s simply not possible with in Minsky’s case as there are just not enough details in the deposition where he is named, and he was never formally charged with any crimes.
The phrase “sexual assault” consists of the adjective “sexual” modifying the noun “assault”, meaning “an assault of a sexual nature”. If I then substitute in the definition for “assault”, I get “a physical attack of a sexual nature”.
I’m not playing word games here, this is just how I understand the English language to work and sexual assault to be defined.
I understand that in certain legal settings, any sexual interaction with a minor is deemed a sexual assault due to the fact that a minor cannot legally give consent. But as mentioned above, the laws in the US dealing with sex crimes are actually quite complicated, and details of what actually occurred between Minsky and the victim are few and far between, so I don’t know if that term would apply in Minsky’s situation.
Maybe I am wrong or maybe we just have different understandings of the phrase (possible given the vagaries of the language). But I think accusing people of “playing word games” and trying to “move the goal posts” is not constructive. You’re assuming bad intent where it could just be something as simple as a difference in understanding.
I am quite honestly happy to accept that you're not playing word games and that your intent with trying to dive into this language is good.
I do not believe the same is true of stallman, after having watched him redefine terms for decades, offer his own set of meaning for jargon in common use elsewhere, and so on. I think his frequent stance of "we must examine what this means" is more often than not a distraction, because sometimes he takes a technical meaning, sometimes he substitutes his own, and it never seems like his goal is a shared understanding; just that we should accept his.
> If any politician or public figure said this statement in the past 70 years, they would have ended their career.
I mean, given everything in the news these days, this is blatantly untrue. I suspect it wasn't ever quite that true before either. Maybe it should be but I don't think it's quite that easy.
> The wrong opinion? Stallman questions whether the victim, who he admits was coerced into sex, was actually sexually assaulted. This is an incredibly shameful take on the situation. [...] There are people trying to downplay sexual assault.
I'm hesitating to respond to this (self-censorship and all) but I'm not a public figure so I can risk being wrong, right? Right?!?
This isn't exactly what RMS was getting it and you're kinda missing the point in the same way RMS kinda missed the point. He didn't get why we use the term "sexual assault" as broadly (and reasonably so) as we do, and it doesn't sound like you get why he decided to argue the semantics of it.
His point was that he felt calling what Misnky had done "sexual assault" seemed to imply that Misky hadviolently attacked and raped her in a physically restraining sorta way instead of, to his best knowledge, in a "she was coerced by a third party without his knowledge" sort of way.
He missed the point that regardless of those details she was sexual assaulted. Further, he seems oblivious to the fact that splitting hairs defending his friend distracts from the real issue: that this isn't about any of them, it's about what happened to the victims. I think that take is fair enough but I agree making that case is bone headed. Not because he shouldn't speak his mind, but that it's just besides the point.
I think you're missing the fact that at all RMS was about was just clearing up the record of what Minsky did and didn't do. Not even that he was fully innocent. I agree it was in poor taste but I think if he was any less a public figure it would have been read more charitably with an awkward sigh instead.
> He missed the point that regardless of those details she was sexual assaulted. Further, he seems oblivious to the fact that splitting hairs defending his friend distracts from the real issue: that this isn't about any of them, it's about what happened to the victims. I think that take is fair enough but I agree making that case is bone headed. Not because he shouldn't speak his mind, but that it's just besides the point.
I don't know... to me it seems totally understandable (even somewhat admirable) that Stallman would stand up for a deceased friend/colleague and try to set the record straight.
I think most people would stand up for a friend in this way. I think where Stallman erred is by making it all about Minsky without in anyway acknowledging what had happened to these girls. It came off poorly.
His friend is accused of having sex with an underage prostitute on a billionares private island.
The fact that he thinks people don't have issues with that, but with the fact that he may have forced himself on her, is what makes him a piece of shit.
I think that details matter when assessing the severity of a crime. The law also takes details into account, assigning different categories and punishments depending on the details of the sexual offense. So yes I think the details of whether he forced himself on her matter. So do other details like what type of sexual acts occurred, the victims age at the time, whether he knew she was under age, etc.
To be clear, I think Epstein committed some terrible crimes and I am glad he was eventually brought to justice. And based on the limited details available surrounding Minsky’s involvement, it certainly looks bad for him as well. And my heart goes out to the victims for the terrible exploitation they were subjected to... I literally can’t even imagine what that must have been like as I have never experienced anything even remotely comparable in my life.
But that doesn’t change the fact that I think some acts of sexual misconduct are worse than others. That I think details and precision matter when accusing someone of a crime. Or that I think the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
> I think that details matter when assessing the severity of a crime.
Sure, but no permutation of details could make an actual sexual encounter, which is the hypothetical RMS is talking about (what really happened isn't even relevant when assessing what RMS said), benign or okay. It could be even worse, sure, but not really good.
> whether he knew she was under age
The only way to not know that would be to not care.
Saying that one crime is less severe than another does not imply that the lesser crime is “benign”.
Stallman takes issue with the word “assault” because he doesn’t think it likely that Minsky forcibly assaulted the victim. That doesn’t mean he is saying Minsky is without guilt, or that the whole Epstein ordeal is somehow “benign or ok”.
> The United States Department of Justice defines sexual assault as "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.
Saying Minsky might not have realized she was coerced, in context of a 17 year old on a private island having sex with a 73 year old, is just nonsense. If (!) he did anything at all (and so far, there's only a claim that Minsky turned her down, plus no claim he had sex with her, AFAIK), that'd be sexual assault just by merit of the power differential.
If RMS doesn't understand that at age 66, that's tough luck, and splitting hairs about the arbitraryness of the age of consent or territorial jurisdictions, then talking about how it was all misunderstood and mischaracterized, because he was also, additionally falsely accused of defending Epstein, doesn't make it seem like he learned anything, at all.
Last, but not least: Not knowing someone's age because one didn't ask for ID isn't ignorance, it's not wanting to know. Likewise, a highly intelligent man thinking "oh my, this young lady who also happens to vacation here is really into me, what a lucky bastard I am" and any variation thereof doesn't pass the smell test. Even having attempted that argument was insulting to anyone's intelligence, and it's insulting to victims of such things.
> Likewise, a highly intelligent man thinking "oh my, this young lady who also happens to vacation here is really into me, what a lucky bastard I am" and any variation thereof doesn't pass the smell test.
I didn’t interpret Stallman’s comment to mean this at all. But rather that Minsky assumed that the victim was engaging in prostitution and willfully engaging in sexual acts in exchange for money.
With regards to not knowing someone’s age, there are a few plausible scenarios that come to mind. The victim could have lied to Minsky. Epstein could have lied to Minsky. She could have presented a fake ID, etc.
I think you making a lot of assumptions here that just aren’t borne out by the evidence available. Assumptions about what Stallman thinks or has implied, and assumptions about the nature of the accusations against Minsky. As far as I am aware we don’t know where or when it allegedly happened, the victim’s age at the time, or the details of how it was initiated. Some of the details you are assuming about the victim being 17 or the encounter having occurred on a private island seem to have been pieced together in a highly speculative verge article or from internet commentators (if you have quality sources of information that report otherwise please share). Stallman may not have had these details in mind or may have had a different set of assumptions when he wrote what he did.
I for one would like to see Stallman elaborate on some of his positions to better answer these questions. Not silenced.
> I didn’t interpret Stallman’s comment to mean this at all.
It does though, just by leaving room for Minsky just thinking she might be "willing", "not coerced".
> As far as I am aware we don’t know where or when it allegedly happened
On that private island during an AI conference held by Epstein when Minsky was 73 and the girl 17.
Though AFAIK there isn't a claim Minsky did anything, just that the girl was "directed to have sex" with VIP, including Minsky. One person stated Minsky turned her down, and she AFAIK didn't claim Minsky even touched her.
But that "something happened" is the hypothetical scenario within which Stallman argued on that mailing list. It's not my "assumption" at all.
> Some of the details you are assuming about the victim being 17 or the encounter having occurred on a private island seem to have been pieced together in a highly speculative verge article or from internet commentators (if you have quality sources of information that report otherwise please share)
Why not just ask right away, instead of after me telling me about my assumptions and sources. The first thing I heard about this was a link to the mailing list, the rest from searches. I never even read the Verge article, no need. I know some articles falsely claim RMS defended Epstein, but that's also not from reading them.
> In 2016, Virginia Giuffre named Minsky as one of the people she was "directed to have sex" with on Jeffrey Epstein's private island while she was 17 years old [5 sources]. It is alleged to have happened in 2002, during an AI conference hosted by Epstein at his compound in the US Virgin Islands. [1 source]
See the sources in the footnotes of that article. If you disagree, don't just do it here, correct the WP article. I for one made sure I know what I'm talking about before I even started to do so. And Stallman isn't being silenced, either, he simply doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
Those citations in the Wikipedia page reference a deposition given by the victim many years after the alleged crimes occurred. When asked where she went to have sex with Minsky she answers “I believe it was” Epstein’s private island. That is not a strong statement of fact. She is using language which implies there is a possibility it may have happened elsewhere.
When asked when it happened, she answers “I don’t know”. This is why I question whether she was really 17 at the time.
There is a flight record that shows Minsky and the victim were together on the same flight, when the victim was 17 years old. But there is nothing that links that flight as occurring at the same time that the victim was directed to have sex with Minksy. Given that the victim was employed by Epstein for years, and reports that she basically traveled everywhere with him at the time, it's entirely plausible that they were two separate events. The reporting that links that flight with the victim's deposition is entirely speculative.
This is my understanding of the available evidence. But it is entirely possible I am missing something. If you think so, please share.
I think it’s wrong to absolve Minsky of responsibility, though. He would have had to be pretty clueless to not at least wonder why all of these teenaged girls were hanging around Epstein’s place. Whether he knew doesn’t mean he did not still have sex with an underage girl. Claiming that he didn’t know she was underage seems shaky to me. At the very least he was taking advantage of a woman in the employ of Epstein who seduced/tried to seduce him. At the very least Minsky was involved in indirect, coerced sexual assault as the one having sex with her (if ended up doing so), even if Epstein is the mastermind. I think Minsky was smart enough to know what was happening. So that is why I disagree with RMS. I think calling it sexual assault done, perhaps unknowingly, by Minsky is an accurate description.
> I think it’s wrong to absolve Minsky of responsibility, though.
Stallman was not saying that Minsky should not be absolved of responsibility. He was just saying that the term "sexual assault" is inaccurate in that it implies violence.
> I think Minsky was smart enough to know what was happening.
That's a fairly large assumption. Minsky's name shows up twice in hundreds of pages of deposition. Once is in a statement by the victim when she is asked to name names:
> They instructed me to go to George Mitchell, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, another prince that I don't know his name. A guy that owns a hotel, a really large hotel chain, I can't remember which hotel it was. Marvin Minsky.
And the only other reference (that I am aware of) is in reference to being on a private flight with a bunch of other people.
How are you able to infer so much from so litte information?
> He was just saying that the term "sexual assault" is inaccurate in that it implies violence.
Which is also incorrect. Sexual assault encompasses coercion without physical violence.
It is accurate to say that the girl was sexually assaulted; whether or not Minsky sexually assaulted her is up for debate.
I agree with the parent that it seems sketchy that Minsky (and the others present) didn't have at least some idea what was going on. At best, these girls could be prostitutes, but just assuming everything about the situation was completely legit is in my mind morally questionable.
Then there wass also a person present at the gathering who says Minsky turned the girl down. If she says that she had sex with him, I would tend to believe her, though.
> Which is also incorrect. Sexual assault encompasses coercion without physical violence.
I was actually reading Stallman's site last night, after seeing the article about him leaving CSAIL. I noticed he had a "glossary" section where he basically rejected the use of many common words and phrases, because their literal meaning did not match the colloquial or modern use (for example, he rejected the word homophobia, being pedantic about the phobia part). I'd bet this whole thing about "sexual assault" is along the same line.
Where the "reality" of language is a result of brutal culture wars that have given us very unnatural categories ("X means Y+Z except in very specific circumstances K where it means Y+W")?
In that case think its important for thinking clearly to develop your own definitions that group things together into categories where all members share important traits.
Great you might be right but are you sorry people got to hear your opinion AND Stallman's? Would it be a better world if only your thoughts were heard or would you not even be sharing them if not for his thoughts being shared?
You believe free speech actually means not being able to express an opinion on anything anywhere that someone else could be offended by or lose your ability to live/eat/get medicine you need to survive. This is what getting fired means to normal people lest you forget.
Having a a factually or morally incorrect viewpoint on a public happening isn't an assault on a victim. Its an opportunity to help that person learn better and even more importantly to help the many more who believe the same as the speaker but who wont speak up learn as well.
Silence dissent and you lose that opportunity and everyone is poorer for it.
> If any politician or public figure said this statement in the past 70 years, they would have ended their career.
Sadly this is not true; it's been routine for all kinds of authority figures to blame the victim and excuse the perpetrator in cases of sexual assault and rape. Including police and judges.
The only way we've moved forward is the public making very clear that that is not acceptable, but this actually has a low hit rate. For every Stallman there is a Kavanagh, and a hundred rape apologists to back then up.
> If any politician or public figure said this statement in the past 70 years, they would have ended their career.
"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. [...] Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
A child who had been captured by Epstein and coerced into sex with a bunch of people said that Minsky was one of those people.
RMS said let's assume it did happen, and then started defending Minsky by quibbling about the definition of assault.
RMS said that minsky having sex with a coerced child shouldn't be called assault because assault requires force or violence.
He's wrong. Assault has an every day English definition and it doesn't require violence or force. Assault has legal definitions and they don't require force.
His position on the word "assault" makes no sense.
This follows on from earlier comments where he said that children can be willing participants in incestual abuse, or that he thinks it's unlikely that children who are abused are harmed by that abuse. He retracted some of those after people told him that yes, in fact, children who are abused are often harmed by that abuse.
I'm quite certain that in '50s USA there were almost no problem saying racist comments and jokes in front of a public audience, but decades later there were. And I guess people from those same '50s were complaining during this change period that they could not express their opinions freely.
I'd say that the fact that rappers using the N-word are part of the community for whom the word was created as an insult it's crucial enough, wouldn't you? Just like I can talk shit of my family but you can't.
Yes, but they say a lot of "bad things" and yet don't seem to be subject to the politically correct rules that the rest of us have to abide by. Hell, Jay Z said worse things than anything stallman said. Yet he was CEO of tommy boy records and there was no controversy.
Having the wrong opinion about certain topics is getting more expensive
This is an excellent point. More and more, there is no middle ground in consequences. Nothing like a suspension? or leave of absence etc. I don't recall how things used to be but I really lament the lack of some sort of gradient scale for punishment.
I wouldn’t call “not actively espousing hateful or bigoted views” “self-censorship”. And if people are afraid to be hateful or creepy in public, I’d call that a win. You don’t get to proclaim the advantages of chattel slavery and be magically immune from everyone’s responses, and afterwards you can’t complain about self-censorship when you think twice about writing or saying something abhorrent.
I am afraid to be mis-interpreted as hateful or bigoted, and have to spend an inordinate amount of time/effort either choosing my words for my audience (which is really hard on the internet with such a broad audience) or correcting knee-jerk responses.
The general over-reaction and constant jousting at windmills seems like a net loss to me.
I've found that a net good thing at least for myself. I used to be the dude who would blurt out whatever popped into my head and not care too much how it would be received by my audience, and sometimes even relish the fact that it was badly received.
By self-censoring and thinking through what I'm about to say and thinking about my audience before I open my mouth I find not only are social interactions easier and more pleasant, but I actually get my points across more consistently and clearly. People are then also more open to listening and don't always automatically get defensive. So ironically applying self-censorship has made it easier to make the points I actually want to make.
I think at the end of the day you just have to take that risk. Or not. It's up to you. I think the majority of the time that you accidentally say something stupid or are misunderstood, it's in a fairly low-stakes situation, so a simple apology will suffice. But when you're a public figure with power over people and ideologies, you have to be a lot more careful about where you choose to engage.
Arguably the (male) head of the Free Software movement has no place debating the definition of "sexual assault" or "statutory rape" in a conversation about a human trafficker and child abuser. His opinions there have zero value (not to mention that a debate over such definitions is missing the point entirely), and engaging in that conversation -- even to come to the defense of his tangentially-related dead friend -- was a very poor choice, even for someone known to be contentious and often misunderstood.
On any subject one can imagine two tribes: The "self-restrained" and the "self-indulgent". The former thinks through every word and the latter blurts out immediately.
And they could self-organize into self-selected groups. Then each type could best thrive in their own self-constructed communities.
And they could practice other-tolerance for the other sort of folks. Because tolerance.
That, plus one can actually change one's mind on some things one has reflexively formed a badly thought-out opinion on before embarrassing oneself by blurting it out.
Not only getting one's point across better, but actually getting a better point across.
I agree with this, at least. It is very easy to be misunderstood in a textual medium like the internet, where people have very little (or no) context about you or how you express yourself.
You call your solution self-censorship, but I just kinda think it's general common sense: why do you feel the need to broadcast your views to a large, unknown audience on controversial subjects where misunderstandings cause a lot of trouble for you? There are plenty of other real-world places to discuss things that don't carry that risk, and likely some more-private places on the internet where you can join an actual community of people who will get to know you over time and understand what you say in context.
Put another way: most people wouldn't randomly walk up to a group of 10 strangers on the street and immediately bring up a controversial topic. Why do we think that's a good move on the internet?
I think we're starting to see the social limits of instant around-the-world communication. It just doesn't work as well as we want it to. The internet is still ridiculously new to the world, and our understanding of its social nuances is still in its infancy.
I agree our understanding of the social nuances of the internet is in infancy; though the human tendency to enact mob "justice" is relatively better understood. The internet has enabled that ugly tendency of humanity to a scary degree. Especially coupled with the strong profit motive of sites like Vice and other so called media outlets, which stand to benefit greatly from whipping up such smear campaigns.
What's the difference between exercising self-censorship and exercising judgment about what's appropriate to say in different situations? Because I think we all do that. Is that censorship?
Has your judgment ever led you to conclude that something ought to be said and it's the appropriate thing to say, and then choosing not to say it anyway because you can't predict the response?
I do that a lot.
You could trivially interpret that as "exercising judgment", but it's not that. I am exercising caution and self-preservation.
I can definitely relate to that, and that's probably a good way to think about the difference.
However, that would categorize Stallman's gaffe here as bad judgment and not self-censorship. Seeing as what he said was definitely not appropriate to say in those circumstances.
Well, there's always the risk of some twitter celebrity choosing your comment to draw attention to. There's been more than a few cases of regular people losing their jobs to mobs calling their employer.
The [-] button is actually a handy thread-collapser. The downvote button is a mirror image of the upvote button and only shows if you have several hundred karma.
Your argument assumes that there's some objectively right definition of which views are hateful or bigoted that exactly corresponds with the ones that will bring the social media mob's wrath down on someone. There clearly isn't:
- How someone is treated depends heavily on whether they're perceived as being part of the right clique. For example, a few years ago Nintendo sacked someone who thought it was a great tragedy that owning photos and videos of kids being raped was illegal and bloviated about this on social media. (Probably not for that reason as it turns out, although her job did involve interacting with kids.) She was in the clique and the people who drew attention to this weren't, so all the right-thinking folks and publications rewrote her views into something much less objectionable, then insisted that repeating what she actually said was a bigoted lie and the whole thing was a misogynistic attack against her. I'm pretty sure there's a heavy overlap between those people and the ones going after Stallman by rewriting what he said in the opposite direction now.
- The views you have to hold in order not to be a bigot aren't consistent from year to year. For instance, there's a faction of self-proclaimed feminists who're really hateful to trans people and have successfully lobbied for some rather bigoted laws. A few years ago any trans woman who merely pointed out the harm they'd done was labelled as a terrible misogynist. Sometime around 2016 this flipped and all the same people who'd been demanding everyone shut up decided those views were now so evil that they justified beating up elderly women merely for holding them, and that the people who were uncomfortable with this violence were the bigots. There was zero overlap between the views that were acceptable before and after the flip, and no room for a more moderate position. That faction has become increasingly irrelevant over the years, so fighting them is actually less important than it used to be.
The larger your audience, the more likely one of them will consider your views hateful or bigoted (regardless of what your views are).
Are there perhaps some views that you think are not quite hateful or bigoted, but aren't totally fine to state? Maybe, "err on the side of caution" type views?
I wonder what Zeno would think on moving your views from completely hateful to completely fine: first you must go halfway-hateful, then half of that, and so on. Perhaps one will never find a completely fine view to state!
I'm picturing someone from China saying "if people are afraid to say things that undermine the stability of our country in public I'd call that a win".
The fun is always in defining what exactly should be in the category "hateful"/"undermining stability of our country".
As a side note, I've advocated for chattel slavery in the past, it actually didn't go too badly.
It's best to look at it through the prism of game theory.
Moral outrage as a language game, especially where certain hot button issues are concerned, like anything involving sexuality, bears a striking resemblance with the language game that unfolds umong children when it is alleged that someone has the cooties.
When such an allegation is made there are three possible plays. Agree, disagree, or stay quiet. In my opinion, the best play is to vocally agree with the allegation when it is made by at least one popular kid or when a critical mass of kids agreeing with the allegation has already been reached. When a critical mass has not yet been reached and the allegation is backed by only a small number of kids and kids who are unpopular or of undetermined popularity status, the best play is to stay quiet while waiting to see if a popular kid joins the allegation or if a critical mass is reached, at which point you should start to also voice your agreement. Something you never ever want to do is to speak up to disagree.
This is because the claim "you've got the cooties", despite being by definition false, draws credibility from how many people agree with it. If someone finds themselves on the receiving end of the allegation, the only possible response is to go "no you've got the cooties" and try to build consensus around that.
So, Kid A goes "Kid B's got the cooties", Kid C goes "No he doesn't". That would be a very stupid play if Kid C is an unpopular Kid, because it would be likely to make Kid A pivot into expressing the view "Kid C's got the cooties", putting Kid C into a strategically worse position than he started out in.
Now, choosing between the vocally-agree versus stay-quiet plays: Vocally-agree is usually a better play. Because Kid B could respond by turning around and saying "no, Kid C's got the cooties!" That is unlikely, but the probability is greater than zero.
If, on the other hand, Kid C goes "Haha! It's true! Kid B's got the cooties" that makes Kids A and C allies, so it advances Kid C's position by getting it into the safety of the herd, so to speak. Because now, if Kid B goes "no, Kid C's got the cooties" you will find that Kid A will voice disagreement. So between Kid B having the cooties and Kid C having the cooties, the greater consensus is around Kid B having the cooties.
It quickly becomes apparent that the game unfolds around popularity and conformism as a self-fulfilling prophecy and that, at the end of the day, popular kid always wins, unpopular kid always loses.
So, about Stallman. Popular kids win. Yet again. Who would have thought that. Stallman's got the cooties.
Yeah, people should be afraid to be "creepy" in public. Bring back that good old high school dynamic where nerds knew their place. Next headline: RMS stuffed into gym locker. Right on!
Consider this then: People who are not allowed to speak their mind will simply be hateful and creepy in the privacy of their home. Wouldn't you rather know who exactly is hateful and creepy to avoid them entirely, rather than create a fake atmosphere of safety.
I think the idea is, let’s not revere or put in power people who do/say/espouse these kinds of views
Stallman is a legend, which means he has a great distance to fall. His point was lost in the fray. I wish he could’ve just kept it to a private conversation with a friend.
Obviously no child can consent to being pimped, for money or otherwise.
A large university department mailing list is hardly a private conversation. One of the participants in that conversation even referenced the thread inevitably being sent to the press.
If it was as simple as a disagreement, that would be fine. But it's not just simple disagreements anymore. It is costing people their livelihoods and futures because they're not toeing the ever shifting line.
I'm not sure, I'm just as confused as you about this mystical time. I don't remember ever mentioning a time where words didn't have consequences, just when you wouldn't lose your job because someone across the country heard you say something they didn't like.
I think you managed to perfectly exemplify the point parent is making. Stallman never argued this, but in the frenzy of outrage his points are being misconstrued and he is villified to rationalize the punishment he has received.
By disagree you mean people might put pressure on your employer until you are fired in order to silence you and anyone who thinks about expressing such thoughts.
Just like Stallman you can express disagreeable things.
If you control money that goes to Fred who employs Bob and tell Fred fire Bob or I fire you then while your actions may be verbal they aren't merely communicative. Clearly you are acting to censor Bob. You may well simultaneously be within your rights to do so and also wrong to do it. If I tell you so I'm not controlling you I'm just trying to persuade you.
Gervais is hugely powerful because he has the money to survive being unpersoned. Not everyone is in his position. His comment is like Shaquille O’Neal saying you actually can walk around and punch anyone you like in the face, because nobody retaliates when he does it (just a hypothetical, of course Shaq wouldn’t do that).
That’s why I mostly use pseudonymous channels these days, like this one. I treat everything I say with my real name like I’m publishing it on the front page of the New York Times and submitting three copies to the Library of Congress.
Many fewer of my current associates hear any real thoughts of mine compared to 20 years ago. I used to get into all kinds of arguments like Stallman’s, on public email lists, which thankfully haven’t surfaced online (yet).
Wait until the AIs get a little better at forensics. Might not be wise to post comments you wouldn't want to come back at you at a forum that doesn't let you delete them, pseudonymous - for now - or not.
> Weirdly all the information technology is steering towards being more similar in our opinions and in what we can say without facing consequences.
Patently that is false.
Given the sheer amount of ad revenue that youtube, twitter et al get from hosting stuff that if printed or broadcast, would be liable to fines. (at least in the UK)
Self censorship is what defines empathy. When your child has done something hilariously stupid and hurt themselves, you comfort them, you don't stand back and tell them how incredibly stupid they are.
99.999% of people would never Mock a grieving spouse in person, why should you be enabled to broadcast that to millions of people on the internet?
I recently deleted all my “controversial” tweets (about 3 or 2). I just don’t share the same opinion than the majority in a couple of topics. I never got into any kind of trouble because of that, my tweets were far from inflammatory, but after reading so many stories of people losing their jobs after someone found an old tweet, I couldn’t risk it, I just can’t risk my family’s stability just for expressing an opinion.
> it's rather interesting how all the information technology (social media, etc...) is slowly moving our culture towards increasing self-censorship.
It's not. Take it from me, a guy who predates social media by decades.
If you go back and look at what Gary Hart dropped out of the 1988 presidential race for, and compare it to what Donald Trump said on social media before, during, and after being elected President, there's just no comparison.
Racial, misogynistic, derogatory, offensive sentiments you can easily find being published on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or most other social media platforms would not have passed muster in any mass-media channel or public conversation 30 or even 20 years ago.
On the positive side, social media has been a tremendous boon to marginalized communities like gay/lesbian/bisexual, transgender, heck, even furries. It has allowed like minds to find and support each other, and allowed the rest of us normies to see these communities for the constructive, positive forces so many of them are. I am convinced that social media aided in their growing public acceptance.
In fact, I'd say that social media has opened up the discourse so much that even the resignation of a powerful figure over controversial remarks about pedophilia--an outcome which would have been expected and commonplace for at least the past 70 years of U.S. society--are taken as somehow problematic.
In other words, things are so de-censored now that even the most anodyne and obvious objections to gross statements by powerful figures is taken as censorship. The Overton Window has moved way over to one side, but people still complain when they hit the edge of it.
You're conflating two very different environments. Mass media of yesterday was the establishment broadcasting carefully considered things. Social media today is individuals chatting to other individuals in a manner that can incidentally be seen by everyone. People using say, hackernews, aren't modelling this interaction as if they are on the stage being broadcasted to the world, they are modelling it as if they were talking to someone at a pub.
The proper comparison is not what a politician could say 20 years ago, but rather what a well-known software figure could say on a mailing list. "Predating social media by decades", you should appreciate how online communication was before the status-gamers got here and reasserted their tribalistic bullshit.
I hate that the parent is being downvoted. It speaks to the poor quality of the community at HN. Parent is absolutely right: twenty or thirty years ago, you were driven from the public sphere for merely a fraction of what passes today as 'within bounds'. Every cry of how we're self-censoring and being chilled rings hollow with every tweet by the pussy-grabber-in-chief. Whining about the boundaries now is just a confession of how little history you know.
The boundaries have always depended on who you are. Most of us aren't billionaires with the office of the president of one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, the services of the strongest military on the planet, and millions of admirers to shield us.
This extremely perverse situation tells us a good bit about a lot of our fellow citizens but nothing about what the rest of us can get away with nor the constraints placed upon us.
If I said something that was misconstrued sufficiently enough for thousands of people to hear about it and hate me even wrongly I wouldn't be giving up my position at MIT I would probably end up homeless until lack of Asthma medication caused me to suffocate.
Part of that not having billions of dollars to fall back on thing.
I think there's more nuance, though. Trump gets a pass (and even praise) for the garbage he spews because he has so many supporters. RMS gets kicked out because his community demands better.
If you or I said something stupid, it'd either not be noticed much at all, or get 15 minutes of fame and then fade into obscurity. In reality, our lives wouldn't change all that much. Yes, there's an outside chance that we could do something so dumb that we'd lose our jobs, but that's vanishingly unlikely, and still, I'd expect the effect to be temporary.
>I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
>How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
>The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
>The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
>As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.
Actually, no one brought this to our attention until a user emailed about it earlier today. If you don't see something being moderated that should be, the likeliest explanation is the simplest: we just didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing all the posts on HN. There are far too many.
As the site guidelines explain, the way to react to a bad comment on HN is not to feed it by replying, but rather to flag it and (in egregious cases) to email us at hn@ycombinator.com. Posting more comments complaining about lack of moderation doesn't help, for the same reason: we might not see it. In fact we probably won't, if we didn't see the original post in the first place. Making your complaint as sarcastic and cruel as you can doesn't add to its visibility.
Would you please review the site guidelines and follow them? They're written the way they are because, to avoid HN deteriorating further, users need to help preserve the site. Letting moderators know about egregious comments (in ways that work—flagging or emailing) is one way the guidelines ask you to do that. Not being snarky or calling names is another.
You and your alt account do not make up "the community". Since I make comments related to the articles and discussions then I am way more a part of the HN community than you are. Anyway, I invite you and your alt account to respond to the content of what I write in order to have a constructive conversation.
It's an interesting dynamic. I would agree that on the whole, you're probably correct that there is less censorship in the society.
However, it seems that the political division is greater than ever. It is almost as if there are two Overton windows now, one for liberals and one for republicans (roughly).
The republican one shifted to much less self-censorship, while the liberal one shifted very slightly to more self-censorship.
And RMS seems to be caught in the liberal one. He has held his opinions for a long time, and nobody really cared that much.
He is also not a particularly powerful figure. If anything, FSF is weaker than it has been in the 90s. That's also an interesting change in dynamics, the shifting of both windows now affects powerful and powerless alike, where in the past, it was I believe considered less decent to have "wrong opinions" if you were powerful, and the wrong opinions of the powerless were tolerated much more. (Basically, the difference between elites and proletes, and agreement who is what, is now morphing into a difference between liberals and republicans.)
I feel like this censorship is mostly caused by centralization of information on closed/proprietary platforms, and the stakeholders of these platforms put it upon themselves to censor content they deem inappropriate or incompatible with their bottomline.
People can say that these platforms are privately-owned and freedom of speech is only about government censorship, but where do you speak when these platform are well established and chances of dethroning them with a decentralized and open alternative are slim to none?
You say people should be able to to say what they want on one hand but that other people should not be able to say what they want on the other hand.
You’re free to say what you want and I’m free to not want to associate with your or not want to do business with you and encourage others to do the same.
Yes, it's sad that there are 50 ways to instantly send photos to your friends, but for bringing disparate opinions together it's pretty much just https://www.kialo.com/
I agree the internet is getting locked down, it'll end up like daytime tv if we're not careful. But I'm two clicks away from access to Nazi and extremist content right now. The internet still is the wild wild west version of a library, in terms of access to content, but now there's laws and archiving of everything typed and read applied on top of that too.
This Stallman case is edge-case fallout from a massive political movement. He could have probably discussed the age of consent in public pre-2013 and maybe get a few disgusted reactions but generally be fine. The political control of internet arguments is more obvious than ever, and the quest for advertising money.. but I'm fairly sure I can start and run a website/subreddit/blog for whatever niche idea and be left alone.
I hope my post didn't look like a defense of stallman, because it isn't meant to be. Yeah people don't remember right? The stories about him seem troubling.
> But I'm two clicks away from access to Nazi and extremist content right now
So? Don't make these clicks and you'd never see them.
> The political control of internet arguments is more obvious than ever, and the quest for advertising money
Advertising money has nothing to do with it - FSF doesn't need advertising money. They're just live in deathly fear of the woke Red Guards, as many before them (e.g. Mozilla) - and that fear may be very well justified.
> but I'm fairly sure I can start and run a website/subreddit/blog for whatever niche idea and be left alone.
Sure you can. If you can do without: hosting, DDoS protection, DNS, advertising, search engines, social media, payment processing, etc. All those have recently been engaged in deplatforming people for political considerations. But yes, you are free to lay your own cable infrastructure, set up your own data centers, build out your own internet, and there have you own website about whatever you want, completely free.
Just saying that the crazy content is still available so assessing the idea that speech is being limited and we are reaching a monoculture is testable against that yardstick. I'm not here to defend the quality or content of those extreme websites.
Advertising money has something to do with YouTube deplatforming people which is part of evaluating the idea that we are becoming a monoculture.
I think only the daily stormer is an example if you go anywhere you will be pulled down, including for. Controlling that stuff is the government's job, I would expect radical political sects to lose the fight to host a website. But if your idea is non political you're basically in the clear.
Please read Richard's actual words again. Read them carefully --- and read his actual words, not just someone summarizing them or stitching fragments out of context. Richard said no such thing.
> P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Or do you believe someone planted it on his website and it went unnoticed for 16 years? How about this:
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
Unfortunately the comment I replied to has been flagged, so I can no longer review the context in which my reply was written. The context for me, involved a FaceBook post, a blog post, a number of media headlines, and a CSAIL mail archive. I believed this was also the context for the parent poster.
What Stallman has said on his personal website, and what his personal views are at large, is definitely outside the realm of what I'm prepared to dive into.
Well, no? Surely the coercion bit is the important bit? It's a bit odd that he had to "learn" that sex could bring psychological harm to children, but he's basically saying that adults should not have sex with children.
Absolutely not. The entire point why paedophilia is considered an awful act is because a child is not mature enough to give consent for such action.
Since children (and I repeat, CHILDREN) are unable to give a proper consent, any sort of a sexual action with them is considered as rape.
> ...but he's basically saying that adults should not have sex with children.
No, he specifically disagrees with the age of consent:
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
In case you're curious, age of consent is mostly 14 to 18 around the world (with some exceptions), and 16 to 18 in the US, depending on the state. He does not provide us with a number, but if you ask me, it's a really weird hill to die on.
So, as of May 2019, in the 34 states that have set a marriage age by statute, the lower minimum marriage age when all exceptions are taken into account, are:
2 states have a minimum age of 14: Alaska and North Carolina.
4 states have a minimum age of 15.
20 states have a minimum age of 16.
8 states have a minimum age of 17.
In Massachusetts the general marriage age is 18, but children may be married with judicial consent with no minimum age limit. In the absence of any statutory minimum age, one opinion is that the minimum common law marriageable age of 12 for girls and 14 for boys may still apply. Unlike many other states, in Massachusetts a child's marriage does not automatically emancipate the minor, or increase his or her legal rights beyond allowing the minor to consent to certain medical treatments.
Those exceptions are related to the age of the other person.
So, for example, in a place where the age of consent is at 18, an 18 year old could have sex with a 16 year old without being considered a paedophile, while a 25 year old could not have sex with anyone below 18.
There's nothing about those exceptions that's US-specific. The number I've posted are the official ones if the other person is above 20-something, while the numbers that you've posted are applicable when both parties are similar in age.
> So, for example, in a place where the age of consent is at 18, an 18 year old could have sex with a 16 year old without being considered a paedophile, while a 25 year old could not have sex with anyone below 18.
That doesn't sound correct to me. As I understand it, an adult (18 and above in the US) cannot legally have sex with someone under the age of consent. So if the age of consent is 18, and an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old, that is considered statutory rape or child sexual abuse. A quick Wikipedia skim[0] seems to agree with me.
Perhaps you meant to say "if the age of consent is 16"? Even then, that doesn't sound right. In that case, both an 18 year old and 25 year old could legally have sex with a 16 year old.
There do appear to be some exceptions in some parts of the world where, as you say, there are exceptions for people of similar age. So in some places, an 18 year old might not be prosecuted for having sex with a 16 or 17 year old if the age of consent is 18. But these seem to be few and far between.
> As I understand it, an adult (18 and above in the US) cannot legally have sex with someone under the age of consent. So if the age of consent is 18, and an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old, that is considered statutory rape or child sexual abuse.
That's a pretty common mistake to make. There's two different sets of rules that kinda blend together when you try to reduce age of consent to a single digit. Wikipedia indeed agrees with me:
> In most states there is not a single age in which a person may consent, but rather consent varies depending upon the minimum age of the younger party, the minimum age of the older party, or the differences in age. Some states have a single age of consent. Thirty U.S. states have age gap laws which make sexual activity legal if the ages of both participants are close to one another, and these laws are often referred to as "Romeo and Juliet laws". Other states have measures which reduce penalties if the two parties are close in age, and others provide an affirmative defense if the two parties are close in age. Even though state laws regarding the general age of consent and age gap laws differ, it is common for people in the United States to assume that sexual activity with someone under 18 is statutory rape.
In any case, we've deviated from the topic far enough. I'd argue that it's a weird thing to advocate for lowering of the age of consent. At best, I'm willing to agree that RMS uses terms like an edgy teen. Minors sext each other, therefore, we should make child pornography legal (seriously, I'm not making this up: https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September...). Age of consent needs to be lowered, therefore paedophilia should become legal. He talks about the edge cases to argue for the whole thing, completely ignoring that those edge cases are not what most people think about when using those terms.
Let's not forget that there was a time when children were taught sex in practical lessons with their parents and this was the norm and perfectly accepted and as such worked well.
It is quite possible that in our times and current society the same does not apply but let's keep in mind that our current society is sick and wrong in many ways, rotten to the core to the point it is self-destructive.
"It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
> "there was a time when children were taught sex in practical lessons with their parents and this was the norm and perfectly accepted and as such worked well."
If you start expressing opinions about how sex with a sex-trafficked child should be legal, won't your friends and family raise some questions about your character?
Unless we're talking of morally flexible individuals. And at least parents should raise an eyebrow, since we have this natural reaction to protect our children.
> information wants to be free
Whomever said that was probably thinking of facts, of knowledge, s/he was probably not thinking of having opinions about pedophiles.
EDIT: don't get me wrong, I think there's a time and place to argue that consensual sex with teenagers might be ok and I think people should be free to make that argument, the problem in this case is that the sex couldn't have been consensual, in which case age becomes relevant, as that teenager isn't fully developed, therefore the harm done is amplified.
And also these opinions have been delivered by a very public figure, with a history of harassing women.
Words matter so the lesson here is don't be a jerk, as technology won't save you from that.
Edit: Particularly relevant to the topic of self-censorship: "unmeasured vituperation, enforced on the side of prevailing opinion, deters people from expressing contrary opinion, and from listening to those who express them."
> If you start expressing opinions about how sex with a sex-trafficked child should be legal
Good thing RMS never did that then.
And your comment is a good representative of the modern debate climate: People will exaggerate whatever their opponent said, and they will assume no good faith in their opponents what so ever. They will not consider an argument something to be learned from, but rather something to be "won".
Getting someone fired over having the "wrong" view is merely a bonus, but a bonus the SJW-crowd loves aiming for none the less.
No wonder we're all getting dumber, when merely trying to have a discussion can get you fired. Of course people will stop debating, and stop gaining insights from that debate.
What? 17-year-olds are still in high school. They probably just barely got a driver’s license. They can just barely see an R-rated movie without a guardian. They can’t even sign waivers to give themselves permission for field trips in my state. How on Earth is it fair to consider them adults and fit to give consent for sex with older men while employed for sex services?
I don't wanna touch the Stallman / Epstein story with a 10 foot (3.x meter?) pole, but I do believe that standards vary.
In Germany a 17yo cannot drive, CAN drink and can have (I'm old and it doesn't apply to me, so this might be only somewhat accurate) sex with other people (but cannot be a prostitute), might marry (needs parents approval I believe). Age of consent is 14 (but .. not for sex with adults as far as I'm aware).
I know that German law has nothing to do with this. But please stop and reflect for a second: The US allows 17yo to steer 2+ tons of steel at high velocities, Germany (as the one example I'm familiar with) lets them have consensual sex or drink beer. The same way you say 'How can they agree to sex' one might ask 'How can they be responsible enough to drive'.
It's cultural, not absolute. I understand the outrage, I am in no way defending Epstein, Stallman or anyone here - but please don't present your moral position/your upbringing as absolute truth. See it as something that you were raised to believe and that A LOT of people disagree with on this globe.
(It's obviously not helping the fact that the girls got paid, it's a completely disgusting, sad and shameful story with no recourse - but don't claim 17yo can't have sex with someone older, ... just because)
I agree morality isn’t absolute, but we’re talking about Epstein (an American and convicted U.S. felon) who as far as I know used only American children in his scheme. What I said is relevant to what stage of life the actual victims would likely have been in, as American teens.
I get your point but it is your local and anecdotal evidence.
In the era of mechanization adult men were replaced in factories by children as young as 6 years old and it was considered a great progress because they could be paid much less and do the same job. Is that fair ?
Before school was made mandatory at 17 you had been an active part of the work force for 10-12 years. was that fair ?
At 17 you can be drafted and sent to war to be killed, fair ?
A couple generation ago at 17 you had been working to bring money to the family for several years.
Problem is that fairness is a human made artificial concept, looking at the human societies almost nothing is fair in them, it's mostly about perpetuating hierarchical structure of power and domination, exploitation and competition. The few examples of success through fairness and cooperation comes from the wild that we collectively work so hard to eradicate.
As somebody else wrote: “minor”. The word “child” has significantly different implications that deserve to be preserved. The examples you’re brining up are evidence of legislative incongruities more than arguments in support of equivalence.
I live in a country where age of consent is 15 and many teens start to be sexually active around 16. From this point of view higher US age of consent, like 18 in California, seems totally absurd.
Have you actually tried talking to a lot of children about this topic?
(it would be funny if you did; it would also be equally funny if you didn't, and are surprised that children didn't express said argument, even though you didn't give them the chance)
In a civilized world, you would be able to sue someone for libel for making a statement of opinion, in the abstract, that might somehow be applied to you? And this is your response to a thread rooted in someone concerned about the need for self-censorship?
I am absolutely floored by your comment. I sincerely hope that it is parody.
Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 of soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution. He plead guilty and was convicted. How much more clear does this have to get? He is a pedophile. How could he not be? He straight up solicited children for sex and has had dozens of credible accusations by women stating that he sexually assaulted them while they were underage. In what planet does this kind of behavior count as okay, even if only a single accusation was true? He solicited a child for sex!
No matter what fucked up views of what is/isn’t pedophilia you have, surely you see how employing underage girls and encouraging them to have sex with adult guests is objectively bad and so justifiably illegal? I mean these are children. Them getting paid makes it no better. Would you be ok with your child being employed by an older man to have sex with rich friends of his? I wouldn’t. Am I just too “self-righteous” to see such employment as exploitive and inherently immoral/fucked up?
It doesn’t matter if it was consensual. It is statutory rape, and 16 year olds are not emotionally and mentally as developed as 22 year olds - no matter what you claim. Ask any 22-year-old woman if she is the same person emotionally/intellectually as when she was 16. How many would say yes? Not many.
If saying, “Hey, Epstein built a secret harem of underage girls and solicited them to adult men - regardless of the children’s consent to be solicited - is a bad thing” is considered a “self-righteous political agenda”, then I guess I’m a full-on self-righteous prick.
The fact that I’m arguing that systematic, coerced sex between rich adult men and underage girls is bad and condemnable and that a lot of people in this comment section would disagree with me makes me lose hope for this world. It should be obvious that statutory rape laws protect minors and are a good thing. But here we are. Something truly is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Convicted in the US of something that is not in crime in much of the world. You are conflating US law with ethics/morals.
You are also appealing to emotion by using 'children' and 'pedophile' in inaccurate ways. If you are going to strictly interpret 'statutory rape' as being morally reprehensible regardless of the circumstances, then I would ask that you stop using peodphile unless you can show me one of his victims that was pre-pubescent. I didn't define that word, it has a dictionary and wikipedia entry that you are welcome to read.
And regarding your claim about emotional and mental development, I would agree that it IS true what you say. However, there are plenty of people who've made it to older age who lack the maturity of their juniors (Stallman apparently being an example!). Age should NEVER be a surrogate marker of capacity... we define ages of legal consent arbitrarily, agreed? There are plenty of 22 year olds making bad decisions...
And the self-righteous political agenda was referring to this legislation:
Plenty of groups including the EFF think this went too far and the way that people throw around 'sex trafficking' and 'raping children' and 'pedophile' are emotional appeals that do a disservice to the actual victims of these crimes.
Of course all of these things are bad, but was Hugh Hefner a sex trafficker because he kept a well-paid harem of women at his mansion? If age is the only discriminator, then why is the US your moral compass when clearly age of consent differs throughout the world? What about Romeo and Juliet laws? States like Hawaii where age of consent is lower?.
> why is the US your moral compass when clearly the age of consent differs throughout the world?
Because the question is not “is it moral”, because the answer is obviously no to any decent person, regardless of age of consent. He used women to gift sex to his friends in an exploitive manner; find me an ethical theorist who supports that. You said yourself in the earlier post that his actions put “his morals/character...in question” and I agree. I also agree that his actions are illegal. As he was convicted and sentenced to a U.S. prison in 2008 and charged this last time and put into a federal jail, I’d say the U.S.’s laws are fairly relevant. No man-made law is identical to a divine law, this is true, but I think the man upstairs would be disgusted by nations allowing child marriages or ages of consent under or at 16. Hell, Satan probably feels uncomfortable, or the Flying Burrito, or just your conscience. But going from the sentiments on this thread, though, I’m sure you could start a group of like-minded people to campaign to lower the age of consent. I can think of a senatorial candidate or two who’d back you all up. The fact remains though, he committed a crime, and I’m sure a majority of Americans (the country in which he was prosecuted) would agree that he is morally reprehensible as well. But hey, it’s hard to decide on ethical question like: “should adults be allowed to sexually use children”. I’ll give you that one.
> was Hugh Hefner a sex trafficker
If he transported underage girls for purposes of sex to a private island, then yes. Oh wait, that’s what Epstein did. The women Hefner kept, as far as I know, were not underage, but if they were and if they were treated as products to be used and sold/gifted for sex, then yes, he would be, as is Epstein.
> You are also appealing to emotion by using ‘pedophile’
Pedophilia has formal and colloquial definitions. While yes, you are correct, many dictionaries do qualify with pre-pubescence, but one of the most popular online dictionaries, dictionary.com, states [1] ‘sexual desire in an adult for a child’. I would argue that the real, not formal usage of pedophile is not so restrictive on the question of puberty. Since English has no standard bodies and words’ meaning is determined by usage, I would consider my use of ‘pedophilia’ semantically correct. But hey, substitute every instance of ‘pedophilia’ with ‘Ephebophilia’ if you want; most Americans would still be disgusted by it under this name, too. Even wikipedia [2] says, though, that pedophilia is commonly used to refer to interest in teens past puberty, so I stand by my apparently loaded vocabulary (is teen-sex-connesieur better?)
[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophilia
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia see bottom of paragraph 2
Well, if you want to use Ephebophilia, you need to establish primary sexual preference, not simply sexual interest. Setting that aside, however...
You talk about colloquial definitions, but colloquial definitions vary. When you say "pedophile", I indeed think of sexual desire in an adult for a child (usually preferential desire, but I suppose it doesn't have to be such). However, "child" in this context (as well as most others) refers to a pre-pubescent minor. So, when you say "pedophile", it conjures up imagery of some middle-aged adult and some 10-year old (or perhaps younger!). Same goes for terms like "child sex-trafficking" and "child pornography" --- these all conjure up images of pre-pubescent children for me. Given the reactions by various people on HN (and indeed my perception of the views of people in my bubble of the world), I don't seem to be alone in this.
Teen-sex-connesieur is ridiculous; I don't think anyone would actually suggest that. But the words you are using carry connotations for many, that you don't seem to be expecting. If these connotations do not match what you are trying to communicate, you might consider some adjustment to your language. Perhaps "teen" "underage" or "minor" would be more suitable words here (I would lean towards the first or second, personally).
---
P.S. And yes, while I do see a difference between a 25 year old and a 16 year old in terms of sexual maturity, I also see a dramatic difference between adult interest in a 16 year old and adult interest in an 8 year old. So I don't think "pedophilia" is a good blanket term to describe adult sexual interest in individuals below the age of 18.
Funny that you would single out Denmark when it had age of consent set at 12 when most of the US had it at 10 or even as low as 7 for Delaware[1].
Many 'developed' countries had age of consent set at 12 until recently (for example Spain raised it to 13 in 1999 then to 16 in 2015).
By your comment all societies before the late 19th were just a bunch of rapists and pedophiles, when it's actually a matter of the legal and moral compass and context evolving with time.
I'd argue that we should have a look at what happened in the last 2 centuries in our societies because caring for our children is clearly not the reason here or else we would have done something 40 years ago about the climate, pollution, smoking, fast food, access to water and food, lack of sustainable way of life, teaching them skills we collectively had 100-150 years ago and countless others things that are making sure they will have no future and suffer horribly in the process of experiencing the global collapse.
> all societies before the late 19th were just a bunch of rapists and pedophiles
I mean, yes? Not sure what you’re getting at. I understand that social norms change over time and remain relative, but if a man in a society of any time period married 7-year-olds or barely teens, then they were morally wrong, even if they were clueless as to the wrongness. I’d hoped this was obvious, but apparently many people on HN have no concept of ethics and see absolutely (ironically) everything as relative.
Think about what you are saying - that given the correct historical context, you would have no qualms with child marriage? That’s not just a lack of a moral compass, that’s a psychopathic perspective.
But, fine, let us suppose that morality is objective --- we can even go so far as to say that it is entirely so, and not at all a moving target. That doesn't necessarily mean that your moral compass, or even the compass of society at any given time, is correct --- even if you strongly feel that it should be. Ethics involves the careful and systematic study and consideration of morality. Words like "obvious" don't really have a place in ethics.
In the Massachusetts of MIT, Harvard, & Martha's Vineyard, the age of consent is 16.
So while coerced sex, or prostitution, remains illegal there no matter the age, mere consensual sex with a 16-17 year-old is NOT "statutory rape" in Massachusetts. Not in that "blue" state, nor the 30 other U.S. states with the same age-of-consent, nor in Canada. Sleazy for those much older, sure, but not the "statutory rape" you're claiming.
But at least one 14-year-old was involved in his case, which lead to his initial imprisonment in 2008. Doubtlessly many of the girls in his employ were 14 or 15. And remember, he wasn’t always in MA. He was a serial exploiter of underage girls, and acquiescence doesn’t mean consent if Epstein held power/influence over the teenage girls.
Yes, some allegations against Epstein himself on other occasions include girls who appeared as young, by witnesses' estimations, as 11-12.
But the specific allegation against Massachusetts-based Minsky involved a woman who 1st met Epstein at age 16, and may not have met Minsky until she was 17.
I believe the confusion is that you're using "pedophile" to mean "attracted to anyone below the age of consent" while pedophile originally means "attracted to prepubescent children". In that regard, you're most certainly not a pedophile if you're attracted to a 17 year old that has gone through puberty. That's also what RMS was referring to if I recall his email correctly.
But surely most 35-year olds would say that they changed much less drastically from 25 to 35 than 16 to 25. I mean would you say it’s ok to have sex with 12 year olds since they “never stop maturing” and who’s to pick a number? I think we can pick a number: don’t have sex with people who are barely out of middle school. It doesn’t need to be scientifically verified; it is simply common decency. It is frankly disappointing that in 2019 this is a controversial statement at all.
As if 2019 was a model of how we should live, of ethics and morality. It is simple to point that 2019 is actually the opposite of a what we should do and very close to a model of what we should not do, especially if we care for our children and the future of living on the only planet we have.
In a society which on one hand is prudish and on the other oversexualizing everything as a marketing plot including young children, it seems logical and expected to have this kind of issues.
> it seems logical and expected to have this kind of issues.
Indeed, which is why we are discussing them. The resolution? Stop sexualizing teenage girls and pretending that they are anything other than children. That is my argument; call it prudish if you want.
People seem to be saying a variety of things about RMS: He's a genius, so let him be. He doesn't understand interpersonal communication. He didn't say the things people thought he said. People are too quick to judge. And so forth.
I was there, about 20 years ago, when he sent e-mail urging all free-software advocates to protest a bill under consideration in the US Congress. I asked him if he had read the bill. "No," he said, "I don't surf the Web." I saw that as a huge cop-out; how could someone claim any moral or leadership authority when he called for protests and a letter-writing campaign on a subject he didn't know about first hand?
It's certainly true that RMS has been remarkably consistent over the 30 years or so in which I've interacted with him -- starting when I was a reporter for the MIT student newspaper, and then maintained the Emacs FAQ, and then wrote for Linux Journal. (No, not GNU/Linux Journal. Sheesh.) He's an extremist. He's a purist. He indeed doesn't get the nuances of interpersonal communication.
But you know what? You can't both lead an organization and be tone deaf to people. You can't be a public figure, demanding respect, and then show such disrespect to others. You can't expect that people will pay attention to what you say when you have so little respect for what they say.
Stallman has long been difficult, obstinate, and rude to people in general -- and a general drag on the cause of open-source (or "free") software. But I had no idea that he was known to be so terrible to women.
But even if he had treated women well -- which doesn't seem to be the case -- it's pretty hard to imagine anyone, anywhere defending Jeffrey Epstein in any way, shape, or form. The guy was terrible, did horrible things, abused a huge number of women, and amassed wealth and power in the most disgusting ways possible. To defend Epstein, or the people who were associated with him, is unacceptable.
Again: You want to defend Epstein in your own personal life? Go for it; you won't have many friends or colleagues afterwards, but that's up to you. But if you do it as the public face of a well-known activist organization? You can't possibly stick around there.
Your argument against Stallman seems to hinge on him defending Epstein, which is something he didn't do. He was defending his late friend, Minsky. Specifically, he was unhappy with the language used to describe his conduct evoking imagery worse than the actual conduct.
I'm very glad to read this here. I'm sorry it's so far down the page.
RMS achieved a sort of secular saintly status early on, and as a result has been excused from developing any sort of interpersonal skills or, apparently, human decency for most of his adult life. Now we say he identifies as autistic, like this excuses it, but in the absence of an actual diagnosis (and maybe even WITH one), it feels like a cop out.
It's well past time to accept that rms may well have damaged the FOSS movement with his behavior as much as he's helped it in recent years.
The free & open software world can do better. It deserves better. We ought to demand it. Moving on from rms is a great first step.
>how could someone claim any moral or leadership authority when he called for protests and a letter-writing campaign on a subject he didn't know about first hand?
...
>You want to defend Epstein in your own personal life? Go for it; you won't have many friends or colleagues afterwards, but that's up to you. But if you do it as the public face of a well-known activist organization? You can't possibly stick around there.
You criticise him for not having read the bill, yet you rant about him without having read his emails? Where did he defend Epstein?
> To defend Epstein, or the people who were associated with him, is unacceptable.
Sorry, but Epstein's crimes, and the horrible things he did to a lot of people, and the growing web of powerful people involved with these crimes, are not something to have trivial fights over.
Maybe RMS was just defending Minsky's participation in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. That's bad enough to me.
> He's an extremist. He's a purist. He indeed doesn't get the nuances of interpersonal communication.
When people say "getting the nuances of interpersonal communication", they usually mean "Not telling the truth when it may hurt other people's feelings or your own reputation".
It's perfectly reasonable to not not tell the truth —and even lie— in those cases, but I would prefer if you stated this idea like it is.
"Getting the nuances of interpersonal communication" is saying it like one doesn't understand that people don't act rationally and will throw logic completely out of the window when one of their religious ideas gets questioned.
Stallman is not an idiot, he knows he will get shit for saying what he says, he perfectly gets the "nuances" (i.e. irrational behaviour) of personal communication. He just doesn't care about them.
I did read his e-mail, actually. And what's why I wrote:
> To defend Epstein, or the people who were associated with
him, is unacceptable.
He's defending Minsky, who was indeed an inspirational genius in many ways, for being part of Epstein's sex trafficking.
Sorry, but there's no possible defense there. Trying to say something nice, or claim that Minsky didn't know, or say that we shouldn't use terms like "sexual assault" because they are laced with moral judgment, is all pretty bad.
It is clear RMS was stunningly clueless to write anything about this, but surely we all know of similar engineers that would make a similar error? If everyone were held up to the same moral standard, we wouldn't have many people left in power! Just to be clear: I'm definitely not supporting hurting children (directly or indirectly) - I hope I'm not falling into the same tar pit.
I certainly respect RMS for what he created and his idealism (although last time I saw him talk he spent about half the time negatively pontificating about Linus and Linux, which seriously damaged his credibility IMHO).
It must be devastating to be on the receiving end of such ire.
Because RMS isn't just another socially awkward engineer. He is a leader and a part of a larger community and is therefore held to a higher standard. The reason for the higher standard is simple, leaders are entrusted with power and need to wield that power better than others. RMS has failed that test today.
> He is a leader and a part of a larger community and is therefore held to a higher standard.
I see plenty of political and tech leaders set extremely low moral standards. Why is RMS being used to set an example? Do you think RMS actually hurt any children?
His comments are tragically inept - but this seems to boil down to being targeted by breaking headlines such as the New York Post: "MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’".
I agree with you here. Stallman's comments on this topic are characteristically appalling, insensitive and pedantic, but I think the headlines printed about him are inaccurate and malicious. These publications have no stake in the matter of Stallman's status at MIT save to entice readers with the promise of scandal. I'm certainly not going to defend Stallman's character, but I think the retaliation against him is disproportionate. One can't help the feeling that when it comes to this kind of scandal there are plenty of bad actors willing to fan the flames for personal gain. I would definitely call into question the motivation of the authors of the articles on this event.
Despite this, and despite the fact that I really dislike the modern use of the word 'problematic', I can't think of a better word to describe many of Stallman's statements and positions. For someone to be a community leader of any kind this kind of tone-deafness, even if only to politics, is unacceptable.
I wonder if any of what's been published about rms qualifies as libellous. His certainly seen serious damage to his reputation, and I think it's clear too that his words have been materially misrepresented.
That's not what happened at all. The headlines are reporting that Stallman said the girl was "willing", while the article you link to explicitly acknowledges what Stallman actually said.
It also happens to chronicle a ton of other bad behavior that he's been engaging in for decades.
I think the news (and many others) are misunderstanding what rms said (or they intentionally misrepresented his words).
The way I understand what rms said is that the victim would've acted ("presented herself") as willing to Minsky, while being coerced by Epstein. That does not imply she was actually willing in any way shape or form.
I think you're misunderstanding it too, based on your statement: "RMS doesn't seem to understand what willing means."
The way I see it, what rms did was (strategically) dumb and tactless, but not unethical at all.
It's funny how so many people try to split hairs regarding the exact wording, but even so: sleeping with an underage girl wouldn't have been fine, it would have been unethical, not to speak of illegal.
So RMS' defense of child abusers is stupid, harmful, malignant and yes, unethical.
RMS is being used because of cluelessness of the person who called for his removal:
"This was not, actually, all that much about Richard Stallman. Stallman was just the last straw. This was really about all the times I have heard about a classmate’s advisor crushing her dreams, about Seth Lloyd mocking female students, the number of women alumni that were too jaded to feel surprised by this revelation, the story I read from a 1987 alumn about the trauma she experienced at the MIT and the world of that era. This was really about everything that has come out before and after the Epstein revelations, before and after Richard Stallman’s emails.
Did I even really know who Richard Stallman was before those emails? To be honest, not really — I’m a mechanical engineer who didn’t pay enough attention, apparently."
If that's what a "newbie" discovers on a rough first sweep, just dismissing it as the ignorance of ill intent of an "outsider", and wanting to move on, is pretty damning.
> Why is RMS being used to set an example? Do you think RMS actually hurt any children?
That implies that there's some sort of process or council there deciding Stallman gets cancelled. Also this just isn't about his most recent comments about underaged trafficking victims potentially being entirely willing, he's had a long trail of classically sexist "look a girl" moments in speeches and really out there opinions about pedophilia and consent that he only outwardly came out against last weekend _after_ he started getting in hot water about those emails.
Often who gets hit and who doesn't isn't 100% about the most recent events and depends a lot on the story catching fire and in this case it caught and there was a whole barn of old dry tender that had largely been brushed aside because of his technical work.
It's a useful deflection from further examination of the slimy tentacles of Epstein's influence throughout tech and academia. Stallman is not terribly well-liked, and made the mistake of shooting off his mouth and grabbing onto the third rail hard with both hands at an inopportune time. He's a useful scapegoat to sacrifice up to Molloch.
That's not what happened. If RMS had actually argued the case objectively, he would have used reported testimony that cleared his friend. Instead he went off on some hypothetical to excuse the bad behavior (which reportedly didn't even happen) of his friend.
It was the wrong forum, the wrong topic, and the wrong argument. It shows a complete and total lack of good judgement. Combined with his history of such a lack of judgement, that is the standard which we should hold people to.
2 wrongs don't make a right. And again, there was a non-hypothetical, objective argument that could have been made to defend Minsky. RMS did not make that argument, instead he went off on some hypothetical that may or may not have happened, but there is at least one eyewitness testimony that says it didn't.
And this wasn't RMS's first time wading into bad positions on topics that honestly aren't up for debate.
Find a few women who've met RMS and ask them about their experience. For years I've been hearing stories from women about RMS that paint a pretty clear picture, and if you look on twitter, there's a number of threads about his abusive behavior towards women. One example: people kept plants around because he hates plants and that made it less likely he'd come around to harass them.
He's discussed his views on pedophilia for a very long time, and this was just the latest on that. It's finally the last straw that was able to bring enough attention on him for action to be taken. It should have been taken decades ago.
> He's discussed his views on pedophilia for a very long time, and this was just the latest on that
Yes, he has.
This is his view as of Friday[0]:
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
Can you help me understand what's wrong with that view?
Maybe I'm missing something, but if I had made such a comment on a public platform and any of my previous employers learned of it, I could 100% expect to be terminated if it came to light. Whether his final philosophical view on the matter is morally correct or not is not the focus here. I can completely understand why a foundation would not want a man who apparently had to be talked into understanding why sex with a child is wrong to be its very visible leader.
You're talking about a role that has to inspire by example, someone responsible for advocating for your institution publicly, recruiting supporters, and so on. No one who has a history of making incredibly suspect comments about children and sex should expect to stay in such a role.
Incidents like this are NOT about setting up an ethics court and decide the morality or immorality of the person's views. They're about an organization waking up one morning and saying, You know what, we really would rather not have someone with a history of bizarre pro-pedophilic comments as our leader. For god's sake, how would you feel if your CEO had a personal web page with a history of arguing for lower age of consent laws? At a certain point people just don't want to come 'work for' such a person.
And really, who among us would be surprised to wake up and find "RMS indicted on child porn charges" on the front page news? People with normal views on child sex topics tend not to be the ones out there talking about 'ephebophilia' and "now I'm no psychiatrist, but here's my argument for why children actually CAN consent to sex with adults." I'm not saying I'm convinced he's a pedophile, or even that I believe him to maybe be one. It's just not a revelation that would shock me.
The cornerstone of modern justice system is that people can get fixed. Shall we cancel that and roll it back to slip-once-criminal-forever mob justice?
I don't know, would you be reassured when a 66 year old man says "Contrary to what I've written on the subject, I have recently learned that having sex with children is wrong"?
People can be fixed. But that doesn't mean that people will still be comfortable with them heading up their ideological non-profit, or that it's unreasonable to question whether or not he is fixed.
And even if he is fixed on the matter of his views on pedophilia, we still have all his creepy behavior toward women to contend with.
The social contract is you try to fix yourself up, society looks the other way on your old acts.
Of course, on some crimes it makes sense to put some limits directly for directly related stuff. E.g. not employing ex-child-rapists in schools.
But shunning people for their opinion, not even what they acted on, in an unrelated field... What's the incentive in getting in line with the society then?
You're joking, right? A 66 year old man just managed to learn last week that having sex with a literal prepubescent child is harmful for the child?
And this guy has been the leader and public face of the FOSS movement for decades? And everyone was fine with his views on sex with children? I had no idea, truly incredible.
The fact that he held the view that "voluntary pedophilia" is harmless for over 10 years, and only publicly recanted during this shitstorm is... not a good look, to say the least.
Everything you said is conjecture. This is one of the most baseless and accusatory comments I've read here. It's so low effort and it's immediately transparent that you just don't like the guy.
This wasn't a witch hunt. This should have happened a long time ago. He is a creep, and has been problematic for years.
“He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason…I was one of the course 6 undergrads who avoided that part of NE43 precisely for that reason. (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…)”
— Bachelor’s in Computer Science, ‘99
All this and more https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
>
This wasn't a witch hunt. This should have happened a long time ago. He is a creep, and has been problematic for years. “He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason…I was one of the course 6 undergrads who avoided that part of NE43 precisely for that reason. (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…)”
Sorry, but you have to be explicit with your accusations. Call me naive, but if you say 'mattress and all the implications that went with it' in the context of hacker culture : the obvious implication is that he is a hacker, who likes to immerse himself in his work, pulls all-nighters. At worse it implies a lack of hygiene and a healthy separation between life and work. Okay a mattress might be taking to the concept a bit far but bean-bag culture is rooted in the earliest days of Xerox PARC, Microsoft, Apple (both Steve Jobs and Bill gates have talked about a lifestyle of sleeping in their office and not going home for days on end), Homebrew club, etc.
I read the medium article and its accompanying appendix, and imo, its scant on facts, and filled with weasel-wording, political posturing and self-obsession.
There is mention of a report of sexism in AI labs. But what are the facts of the report. Was Stallman implicated in this report? The article doesn't say so. It looks like the author ju just put it out there to make a association between RMS and sexism in the minds of the readers.
The only real factual account( by 'factual' account i mean explicit about the alleged details and facts of events) is the one where the management undergrad was hit on in the restaurant.
I think that targeting a "creepy" social misfit is one definition of a witch hunt.
We can mostly defend against men that give out creepy social cues. Guys that are not creepy are far harder to defend against or get justice against: a guy that knows how to present himself understands social signals (almost self defining) and they can often get away with a lot because of that.
Plenty of guys hit on young women (I saw a study that showed that men of any age say they want a 21 year old). Are we surprised to find out "teen" is a major keyword on porn sites? Many men with a social standing (or money) use that to their sexual advantage. Go to the pub and listen to some drunk bro's: there is a large number what a lot of men say is extremely disturbing. I think they are highly immoral; but the attitudes are common and we usually avoid the moral argument and simplify it with a legal argument (statutory rape laws which rightly protect our weak and vulnerable).
I don't doubt that RMS has been an arsehole, and his workplace, voluntary workplaces, friends, family and acquaintances should definitely make him accountable, and take action against arseholery.
However, what seems to be happening here is that Richard is getting publicly shamed and publicly tried and judged guilty for being creepy - no accountability required.
What’s truly remarkable is that you spent several paragraphs admitting that men tend to make offensive, sexist remarks and gestures, and then you use this to justify Stallman’s behavior. This is exactly why the tech industry NEEDS to do better.
>This is exactly why the tech industry NEEDS to do better.
By exchanging clearly visible markers against which action can be easily taken for unaccountable bullying and mob "justice" (which tends to unfairly advantage women in the same way you level your accusations)?
All you want is to give a different group the right to bully and oppress others rather than actually solving the problem. This isn't making things "better"; it's typically considered rather harmful, unless you're a sexist, racist, or both.
Calling Richard a creep is ad-hominum: judgement by social media.
I wasn't trying to say his behaviour is acceptable. It seems he needs to work on his social interactions (most of us need to work on that, and we should all fight for better).
The only reason for this brouhaha is that the media has attacked him. He wrote that she was coerced. The media has said he said she was willing.
Now plenty of words are being used to picture him as immoral.
What seems weird is that Richard comes across to me as idealistically moral, almost religiously moral: with the misfortune to have a popular wave crashing into his philosophical castle.
Homo is third declension masculine, hominum is plural genitive ("of men"). Here you need accusative, so ad hominem.
Case Singular Plural
Nominative homō hominēs
Genitive hominis hominum
Dative hominī hominibus
Accusative hominem hominēs
Ablative homine hominibus
Vocative homō hominēs
From a French education, I have learned a different order of cases for Latin declension tables (NVAGDA: Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative, Ablative). I was curious to know where it comes from, and apparently the order you used is more common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Order_of_the_...
He slept in his office, and had ever since his house caught on fire, some years before I met him. I met him in 1984. When he moved his office to a rebuilt floor at tech square, he had a wall dividing the office into two halves. One half was his sleeping space, and the other, which was accessible from the hallway, was his working space.
He slept in his office, and had ever since his house caught on fire
Yeah. This is true.
He was intermittently homeless while developing the free software stuff. It was kind of homeless lite because he was a hacker and often slept at work.
He was unable to register to vote at one point because he listed his work address and described himself as a squatter. He got his right to vote when some interview in some national publication came out stating the same thing. At that point, the registrar of voters accepted his work address on his application.
If you read the medium post the author admits she had no idea who Stallman is and that it was not really about him, and instead of admitting she was wrong on several point she went on and digged some stuff and put them together trying to paint RMS in a way that fit her accusation and her call for his removal.
Coming from someone who admits to have written out of anger accumulated from different personal experience, admitting she iss after someone she had no idea who he is, who misrepresented what was said to fit her views and narrative, I would not give much credit to anything that was added afterwards in this appendix.
Wow, she's just compiled a hit list and blogged about it: "if I had to ever be in the same room with Richard Stallman, how I would handle it, and how I could keep myself composed.".
I'm pretty sure we could assassinate the character of anyone that started writing on the internet before we knew it was going on your permanent record.
Perhaps Richard is a heel, but he doesn't deserve unaccountable bullying and mob justice.
Where is the accountability for the publications and bloggers portraying him to be a rapist apologist?
Good people don't want to hurt people. Corollary: People who want to hurt people who hurt people, might want to do it because they like hurting people.
Stallman sounds shady, but what's our basis for concluding that it wasn't for sleeping and was instead a creepy sex invitation? The word of a blogger who put words in Stallman's mouth and got him fired for them? I would appreciate a corroborating source, preferably one who didn't have as big of an ax to grind.
> In the days of the PDP-1 only one person could use the machine, at the beginning at least. Several years later they wrote a timesharing system, and they added lots of hardware for it. But in the beginning you just had to sign up for some time. Now of course the professors and the students working on official projects would always come in during the day. So, the people who wanted to get lots of time would sign up for time at night when there were less competition, and this created the custom of hackers working at night. Even when there was timesharing it would still be easier to get time, you could get more cycles at night, because there were fewer users. So people who wanted to get lots of work done, would still come in at night. But by then it began to be something else because you weren't alone, there were a few other hackers there too, and so it became a social phenomenon. During the daytime if you came in, you could expect to find professors and students who didn't really love the machine, whereas if during the night you came in you would find hackers. Therefore hackers came in at night to be with their culture. And they developed other traditions such as getting Chinese food at three in the morning. And I remember many sunrises seen from a car coming back from Chinatown. It was actually a very beautiful thing to see a sunrise, cause' that's such a calm time of day. It's a wonderful time of day to get ready to go to bed. It's so nice to walk home with the light just brightening and the birds starting to chirp, you can get a real feeling of gentle satisfaction, of tranquility about the work that you have done that night.
> Another tradition that we began was that of having places to sleep at the lab. Ever since I first was there, there was always at least one bed at the lab. And I may have done a little bit more living at the lab than most people because every year of two for some reason or other I'd have no apartment and I would spend a few months living at the lab. And I've always found it very comfortable, as well as nice and cool in the summer. But it was not at all uncommon to find people falling asleep at the lab, again because of their enthusiasm; you stay up as long as you possibly can hacking, because you just don't want to stop. And then when you're completely exhausted, you climb over to the nearest soft horizontal surface. A very informal atmosphere.
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that women would have sex with RMS, let alone have sex with him on a mattress on the floor of his office. Jokes aside, this sounds downright unprofessional. I would have expected the institution to put this kind of behaviour in place.
considering according to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20991909 he apparently was homeless and lived out of his office for a while, yeah that's probably the definition of unprofessional.
Saying we wouldn't have anyone left in power of they were held up to this standard seems more damning to our current power structure than the moral standard at play here
1. If you are attacked by the media, you will lose in the court of public opinion (I expect we wouldn't know about this at all except for the egregiously misleading "news" headlines).
2. Never ever discuss toxic topics (particularly if you are either a little odd, or politically weak).
3. If you publically question anything about a witch hunt, you too will be branded as a witch.
4. Beware of getting poisoned by association (Epstein -> Minsky -> Stallman -> anyone defending RMS).
From what I can tell, the actual morals of RMS don't seem to be the actual issue here.
There is surely a modern Grimm parable in all of this.
As to #4, if you're actively defending particular people's views on sex with underage people, then yeah, people are going to view you negatively by association. The vast majority of people vehemently disagree with that view, and for the most part, people assume that if you defend the view, it's probably because you agree with it.
Thing is here, RMS was talking about an accusation being misqualified in relation to Mens Rea and some person took offense and misrepresented his words to present him as saying something else[1].
Then again I beg to differ, the vast majority of people do not live in the US and have different local definition of underage, also the US has a reputation for having a fascination for sex with teenager (one of the most popular porn sites categories during the last 25-30 years).
Your garden-variety human being with even the slightest social wherewithal would know better than to say some of Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing”.
This is not the fault of the media looking for witches to hunt. This is the result of a massively intelligent man deciding to spit into the political wind.
The whole point is that Richard said she was unwilling.
Here's the context "...plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein...".
Richard is talking about her being coerced -- to pretend that she was willing.
The witch hunt is taking the context (Richard presumes she was unwilling) and then twisting his words to make it appear that he said she was willing.
The moral dilemma is: is someone willing if they pretend to be willing? Let's guess she was paid to pretend to be willing (why else was she doing it?). Perhaps she was paid to be a honeypot (entrap someone by pretending to be interested in sex - it is at least plausible). I think we can all agree that the girl probably would prefer not to have to screw some random. Of course, any underage sex is breaking the law, and ignorance won't help you (in court or the media).
Richard's words could have been better, but the quotes in the public media (and you repeating the two key words) are clearly twisting his meaning 180 degrees.
> This is not the fault of the media looking for witches to hunt.
The media is at fault when it radically perverts meanings just to get eyeballs. Why pretend that there can only be one single canonical root cause?
> This is the result of a massively intelligent man deciding to spit into the political wind.
It seems obvious enough to me that Richard is definitely not "massively intelligent" when it comes to social nuance. We all have our strengths and weaknesses: many engineers cut themselves using their blunt EQ knives.
The EQ point is interesting. If we simplify things a lot, engineers generally aren't "forgiven" for having a low IQ. Why should leaders of massive groups of people be forgiven for having a low EQ?
To me, showing a profound lack of the intelligence that is incredibly pertinent to your role is no different whether you're an engineer who can't write FizzBuzz or you're an OSS leader who says that sometimes it's fine to have sex with children.
I disagree, it feels like a witch hunt because it is one.
I read the original post that started this witch hunt and my baloney detector went off all along, in particular when I read the quote from RMs stating one thing and the author calling for his removal misrepresenting and misunderstanding them as if they said the exact opposite.
It's not true. I don't particularly like RMS, I don't agree with his views about free software and I don't like GPL as a license. I also think his views on many political issues are naive, go against human nature and if implemented would cause a lot of harm.
Still, I think the way he was forced to go is shameful. Some journalists couldn't interpret a simple statement (sadly very common), started an outrage and the pressure became too much. I hope he sues them and wins enough money to have a peaceful retirement. I don't want a world where some of the biggest contributors to technological wealth we have access to can't freely state their views, qualms and doubts or even start a discussion about controversial moral issues.
I personally hate to see important free software and opensource contributors quitting because of some stupid reason that could have been handled without immediately weaponizing what someone said to start a twitter or news shit storm.
That was definitely a witch hunt. He worked hard to give advice that he thought would be useful for improving diversity at Google. Nothing he said was outside of the scientific consensus, yet he was demonized[1] and fired for it. The whole thing is absurd.
1. Check out some Googler's responses to his document (which, in case you forgot, was deliberately leaked without diagrams or citations): https://imgur.com/a/S48QN Several want him physically battered for his opinions.
Just because you write up something that sounds "intellectual" and appears to have "reputable sources", it doesn't mean it is or it does. Damore's garbage post was just that: garbage.
It's really sad that people felt the need to stoop to threatening him with physical violence, but that doesn't mean he wasn't completely wrong and had to go.
Care to explain what was "garbage" about the memo? Word of caution: the memo did not claim that women were worse performers in tech due to biology, or that tech jobs are not and should not be people-focused. These were things stuffed into his mouth by shoddy coverage (the journalist that broke the story admitted that he did not actually read the original memo).
I'm not aware of Peter Singer's work, but from my reading of Scott Alexander and Steven Pinker, as well as rebuttals to their writing, I'm not sure I'd consider them authoritative.
Before jumping to criticize Stallman, be aware: there is a big difference between what today's round of headlines claim Stallman wrote, and what he actually wrote. Given the relatively clear-cut nature of the lies the press has told about him, I think he ought to be suing for libel.
What is the counter argument for what Stallman wrote? I've seen that the "press is going too hard on him", but, honestly, I think they were justified. What is the "big difference" to you? If someone, personally, said to me that that someone be absolved of a crime, because the other, coerced, party was "willing" at that moment, I'd seriously question their morals.
Stallman wrote:
"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."
These headlines do not match what Stallman wrote. They wrote awful words, and put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said something which he didn't. That's not okay.
Stallman conjured up a thought experiment where Minsky is innocent because the minor was "entirely willing." That was the defense Stallman decided, even if those aren't his exact words. His exact words aren't any better then whatever the media decided to run with, at the end of the day his intent was identical. The headline could have been "MIT scientist says you shouldn't get punished for raping minors as long as they present themselves as entirely willing." Do you believe I have gotten that wrong? And if not, can you argue why that is any better than what the media put out?
If Minsky could show up to court for his crimes and he said "Your honor, I didn't know she was 15", he would still go to jail.
He explicitly does not think she was willing. He thinks she was unwilling but was coerced to give the appearance of willingness and that the appearance of the two from Minskys point of view were the same.
This isn't a subtle difference. You think he said almost exactly the opposite of what he said
So Stallman's argument was that the most plausible scenario here is this: Minksy -- who at the time of these events had to at least have been in his sixties, not to mention, you know, married -- went over to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion, where Epstein presented a teenage girl to him for the purposes of having sex (the claim she makes is that she was ordered by Epstein to sleep with "powerful men"), and because the girl didn't explicitly say she had been ordered to do so, Minsky was fine with it all.
So, are we saying this is a particularly good defense? Because it doesn't sound like a great defense to me. It doesn't sound like any reasonably smart person -- which Minsky undoubtedly was -- would find themselves in this situation and not have a question or two about the ethics.
Let's agree that the reporting did, in fact, get Stallman's meaning wrong here. Let's even agree that isn't a subtle difference. Here's the thing: even the most generous reading of what Stallman wrote is still, at the end of the day, excusing Minsky's actions.
And at the end of the day, I think that's still a problem.
The thing is, this one statement is ... tolerable. A bit in poor taste as far as apologia goes.
But then to have a long track record of disagreeing with age of consent; semantic arguments about pedophilia; treating women with disrespect and general creepiness-- it eventually gets to be too much.
Any time you have to say this:
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
After having said this:
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
That is, once you've fucked up with pedo-apologia a few too many times, maybe it's time to be really, really careful in what you say in defense of a colleague's possibly questionable sexual actions.
How many disagreeable opinions do you personally allow someone to have before you believe it correct for people to try to coerce other people to stop doing business with them so you can silence them exactly?
That question of your is kinda in bad faith, though isn't it? There's no reasonable answer to that question. The answer is, of course, "it depends".
I would not want to work for a CEO who believed for years that "voluntary pedophilia" doesn't harm children. If I were someone at the FSF with any amount of power, and I found out about that, I would immediately work to get him ousted, or, failing that, I'd quit.
And it's not like this is the only thing he's done; he's been creating a hostile environment for women at MIT for decades. It's about time he was held to account for that, too.
So, do you think, for instance, FSF donors and contributors should be compelled to keep working with the FSF even if they find the statements of the president of the FSF to be repugnant?
A key reason behind him stepping down is because the GNOME folks wanted to part ways with the FSF over these issues.
I'm curious about this point. If I don't do business with some company, am I silencing someone? Or only when I don't do business with a company for some specific reason?
Now, say I tweet about my boycott of this company. Am I now silencing someone?
Since we're discussing the fine details here, can you tell me exactly when my freedom of speech becomes a tool to coerce and silence others in this scenario?
Having sex with someone who is underage (in this case, 17, in a jurisdiction where the legal age is 18) is a strict-liability crime, meaning the prosecution doesn't have to prove that you knew. But be aware that, while Minsky is dead and unable to defend himself, there is apparently a witness who claims that Minsky is innocent--specifically, that Giuffre was directed to have sex with Minsky but Minsky turned her down. Since dead people can't have trials, we will probably never learn the facts of the matter.
We are conflating 'law' and 'morals/ethics' in these arguments. If you act with strict adherence to the law, I'm assuming you've never jaywalked, committed piracy, ran a red light, etc.
Oh, these are 'victimless crimes?' What about sex after having a couple drinks? Technically neither of you can consent under the law... a person has probably committed rape if their consensual partner had a 0.08 BAC.
I think that our lack of a legal word other than 'rape' to describe 'statutory rape' does a disservice to those women are victims of forcible, violent sex acts.
Although technically correct in many US jurisdictions, I think you would have a VERY hard time arguing that an 'adult' having consensual sex with a 17 year old being described as 'raping minors' is morally equivalent to the things that 'rape' is typically used to describe.
That’s not his defense. Stallman never disputed the lack of consent of the minor. He’s saying the minor might have been coerced by Epstein to “present herself as entirely willing”, i.e. she _looked like_ she’s willing when she’s really not. Minsky would have no way of knowing.
You are making the same defense that you are claiming "that's not his defense." You both are making the same statement that "its ok, because he didn't know.", just in a very roundabout manner.
If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.
> If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.
This is correct, at least for many US states (22, according to Wikipedia’s article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) ) . You can meet someone under the age of consent in a bar, see them drinking alcohol, even have them show you their license and be fooled by a fake ID, and still be liable under the law to go to jail for statutory rape.
According to that Wikipedia article though, in some other U.S. states ignorance would be a defense. Whether that’s the case for the U.S. Virgin Islands isn’t clear.
I’m not saying it’s ok because he didn’t know. It’s certainly still rape, but I’d say the criminal in that case would be Epstein, not Minsky. If he sincerely thought she was a sex worker who’s over 18 and willing, why is he at fault? He might have done everything right and have gotten (what looked like) informed consent, for all we know.
You don’t have to agree with this idea (it’s not like we have any evidence after all), but I hope we can agree that it’s not entirely unreasonable.
>If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.
He would be convicted if he had sex with her. The evidence that he had sex with her is that she was sent to his room and he didn't report that to the authorities. That doesn't seem overwhelmingly persuasive.
The statement is NOT "it's ok because he didn't know".
The statement is "he probably didn't know". If he did have sex with her, it's still not ok, regardless of whether he knew or not. And yes, he would still go to jail.
He does not really say Minsky was innocent - he insists that what Minsky did should not be called 'assault' because this term is misleading.
[Update] In another place he does argue that it is not evident that Minsky eventually did have sex with her - from the deposition it seems that she said she was directed to do it and then the lawyer asks where she went to do that and she answers that question, but it is quite probably that she misunderstood and answered the question 'where was she directed to go to do that', and there is a witness who says that Minsky turned her down. For me this is a fair argument.
It's sad when people are blinded by anger and cannot read a sentence properly and understand what is meant.
I'll repost here a comment found under the original source that started this misinterpretation of words:
I want to point out a problem: The article claims that Stallman states
(…)that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
I think this is a misinterpretation of what he said; it doesn’t change things for the most part, but what he said is at least understandable, if still fairly awful.
His claim, which I don’t really believe is well-founded (but that’s beside the point at this instant) was:
(…)the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
(emphasis mine)
That is, as far as I understand, he’s stating it’s most likely that Epstein coerced her into the situation, but that she led Minsky to believe it was of her own free will — and, while I (and I suspect many other people) don’t see where Stallman gets that idea, and it isn’t necessarily the case here, I would assume we can all agree that in such a case, the individual wouldn’t be guilty of rape (due to a lack of mens rea, that is, not knowing that the person was being coerced). In short: he never states that an enslaved child could be ‘entirely willing’, merely that someone lacking relevant information could believe an enslaved child was entirely willing (requiring them to neither know the individual is enslaved nor that they are a child — which is possible for someone who’s 17 years old)
That is seriously fucked up. From that wikipedia article:
> a pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless.
> a 15-year-old boy was convicted of statutory rape of a child under 13, a crime under Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution accepted the boy's claim that he had believed the 12-year-old girl to be 15, but he was nevertheless sentenced to 12 months' detention.
When I read this, I'm very happy to live in a more sane part of the world.
Whereas 15 is a more extreme example, the law is absurd if that is also the case for 17 and a half vs. 18. Obviously there is no way to know the difference, so is the actual intention of the law to simply prevent people under 30 from having intercourse?
Disclaimer: I am definitely not defending the whole sex dealership thing, I am just wondering about what a 19 or 20 year old college student is supposed to do to behave legally.
Edit: as a comparison, in Germany the age of consent is 14 afaik and there exist several additional laws to protect, e.g. 15 year olds from older people that have some kind of power over them (e.g., teachers).
As the parent poster pointed out, the ethical ground of the law, or how the case would be treated abroad would have no baring in court.
Regardless, I think Stallmam's mistake was to try to start a debate about Minsky's guilt and about statutory rape in the wrong place: a mailing list about Computer Science which includes both staff and students, especially given that he is not a random person, he is an authority figure when it comes to CS and at MIT.
The debates might be valid but the place, and time (given everything going on about the connections between Epstein and the MIT) are what is wrong here.
> The debates might be valid but the place, and time (given everything going on about the connections between Epstein and the MIT) are what is wrong here.
Yes. And it's such a Stallman thing to do, to have a valid debate regardless of circumstances (whether it was the time or the place to do it). He takes his principles to unheard-of extremes.... but at least, he is a principled man. I wish we had more people like him, TBH. It's one of the persons I don't always agree with, but I always found it very easy to respect his position.
She was 17, and at that point in time 17 was above the age of consent in the US. It was changed to 18 around 2002. So it would have been completely legal back then.
This is incorrect. The age of consent in the USA varies based on state, many being 16, some being 17 and 18. However, the age of consent for sex trafficking or prostitution is fixed at 18 by federal law.
Not trying to defend them for not doing journlism and being unable to understand a simple sentence but these 'news' outlet just copied what had been written in the medium publication calling for the removal of Stallman[1]:
"…and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. Let’s also note that he called a group of child sex trafficking victims a ‘harem’, a terrible word choice."
> They wrote awful words, and put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said something which he didn't.
Actually they did not do that, they simply parroted what had been posted on medium by Selam G.[0] in her call to remove Stallman[1].
Not trying to defend the media, they clearly did not do their job of fact-checking and jumped of the bandwagon of making outrageous headlines to make money, but the actual responsibility of misrepresenting RMS words to call for his removal lies on the original author.
Really this reminds me of a recent set of CNN opinion articles after the whole ridiculous Greenland thing. On video Trump referred to the comments by the Denmark PM as "nasty". CNN even has a headline "Trump calls Danish PM's response on Greenland 'nasty'".
Okay, but then they also ran a suite of opinion articles that said "Trump calls Denmark PM nasty" and then "Trumps Problem With Calling Women Nasty." I mean, look.. I get the thread and all that but that springboard article headline is just factually incorrect and then you have a whole analysis piece built off it. CNN has no way I'm aware of to report inaccuracies.
So much of news is just designed to get a rise out of people and EVERY site is guilty. It's particularly bad with opinion pieces which are, IMHO, tailored to specific demographics. News orgs hide behind the "opinion" label but really they just kill the whole orgs credibility. NYT keeps stepping in this; most recently with the Sunday Review piece on the new Kav book..
RMS also wrote in April, “I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein. Epstein is not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all been postpuberal,” and that alone disqualifies him from any position at a school or foundation.
In no way is he defending Epstein. He actually calls for a harsher sentence for Epstein, and a more concrete term that paints him in a harsher light than the verdict. This is a simple matter of classification, which doesn't seem at all strange to me coming from a scientist at MIT...
> (Now) Labor Secretary Acosta's plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein was not only extremely lenient, it was so lenient that it was illegal.
I wonder whether this makes it possible to resentence him to a longer prison term.
I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein. Epstein is not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all been postpuberal.
By contrast, calling him a "sex offender" tends to minimize his crimes, since it groups him with people who committed a spectrum of acts of varying levels of gravity. Some of them were not crimes. Some of these people didn't actually do anything to anyone.
I think the right term for a person such as Epstein is "serial rapist".
Mens rea ("guilty mind" aka criminal intent) is an important element for many crimes. People - generally - are inconsistent with regard to how much they think impact matters for a crime and how much they think intent matters. The law is also inconsistent, with itself, and with the opinions of the citizenry. In this case, US law (but not the laws of all countries) makes sex trafficking and statutory rape strict liability laws - only impact matters, not intent.
Stallman raised the question of Minsky's mens rea, suggesting that Minsky might not have had any criminal intent at all. To people who feel that mens rea should always be a criteria in criminal and moral judgement (such as myself), the existence or lack of existence of mens rea matters to Minsky's moral culpability.
With all that in mind, I'm dubious that Minsky could have been approached by a young woman and not had some degree of mens rea. At the very least, Minsky must have assumed the woman was a paid sex worker and recognized at least some possibility that she was trafficked and/or underage. I can't abide the notion that a old man would have mistaken the invitations of an uneducated young girl as genuine attraction.
>With all that in mind, I'm dubious that Minsky could have been approached by a young woman and not had some degree of mens rea. At the very least, Minsky must have assumed the woman was a paid sex worker and recognized at least some possibility that she was trafficked and/or underage. I can't abide the notion that a old man would have mistaken the invitations of an uneducated young girl as genuine attraction.
Lots of famous men of all ages are approached by groupies. Some accept their advances, some don't. I've never heard of any of them reporting the fact to the authorities.
I've been solicited for sex by random teenagers and young adults on a regular basis in North Africa, eastern Europe and Asia outside of coercion and trafficking despite not being close to be famous or having significant amount of money.
Simply based looking like I'm from a part of the world where life is not as difficult seems to be enough for a number of people living there to take a chance.
I could also feel how I was the focus of attention of many who did not dare but were considering making the move. A very strange and creepy experience.
And that was in the streets and public places, I'd expect that in the context of a private party the teenagers who managed to get their way in to be daring enough and trying harder, so I guess we have different views based on different personal experience.
To be precise Stallman argues that lack of mens rea at least should mean that it was not 'assault'.
In another place he also argues that it is not evident that Guiffre had sex with Minsky - she says she was directed to, but she does not say that she eventually did that, the lawyer did ask here where she went to do that and she answered this question but it is quite probable that she misunderstood the question (and instead answered the question where she was directed to do it) and there is a witness who says that Minsky turned her down. It is a fair argument for me.
I'd say the big difference is that the press is accusing him of defending Epstein when in fact he's defending Minsky. Of course people may think that's still problematic, but that's not what the headlines are accusing him of doing.
I mean, let's put aside whether the person might have reasoned the other party was willing. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If someone appears 100% willing to you, and there's absolutely nothing different from a genuinely willing person, why should you be at fault because somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise).
If someone does a 100% legal thing according the information they know, and is not otherwise negligent, there is no crime they should be charged with. As it happens, in the US, statutory rape is the only one I'm aware of that does not follow this criterion; even manslaughter requires negligence (although I'm not making a point about that).
> somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise)
It's like benefitting from any other kind of traffic, isn't it? If you benefit from a money laundering scheme or a fraud, you'd be charged with complicity, even if you took a lot of care into not inquiring about the provenance of the money. At least, that's how it's be judged in my country (France, and I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me on that). I can't tell for other countries.
Even if the person who commited the crime had no knowledge that the other party was coerced? Why are they at fault because they were lied to and tricked into commiting a crime?
There are certain crimes for which intent doesn't matter, legally. This is one of them.
And likewise from a moral perspective: Minsky did harm her. Regardless of his knowledge of the situation at the time, I would expect him (were he still alive) to apologize and do whatever he could to try and heal the pain he caused.
However, I do also think it would reflect much differently on his character if he knew all the details of the situation he was in vs. if he did not. That, from what I've seen, is still unclear.
First, claiming ignorance isn't a strong defense. It wouldn't hold up in any court in America, so I have no reason to buy it as an argument.
However, if it did, to be fair, you would have to seriously consider if it is reasonable to assume that person was ignorant. For example, if you know your friend is a drug dealer and he asks you to "drop off a bag at another house", you would get the book thrown at you even if you didn't know they were drugs in the bag.
Having sex with a minor is a crime, regardless of coercion, because a minor is not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult, because of both cognitive differences and power imbalances.
If someone Minsky's age went out and started dating and having sex with high schoolers, he would go to jail. Period. Regardless of the exact social dynamics.
There's minor, and there's minor. Age of consent differs by state and country, quite a lot, everything from 14 y.o. to 21 y.o. plus special case exceptions by court.
Remember that before making absolute statements about mental powers.
By the way, coerced sex (sometimes rape, sometimes assault, sometimes pimping, in some places prostitution) is illegal among adults too. You can keep it extra illegal for minors.
Minority should not be an absolute but treated as a high bar. (The younger, the higher.)
Unfortunately legislatives are black and white in most countries, and people accede to it.
He'd have a very hard time winning. In many jurisdictions there is a "substantial truth" doctrine: if a statement gives an impression that's substantially close to the truth, it's considered OK, even if technically false. Once you add in how many people typically react to this sort of thing...
The claim "he defended Epstein and says his victims were willing", as for example the Vice article writes, is not substantially close to the truth. It is false absolutely.
Not unexpected, but I'm surprised it happened so soon after he resigned from MIT/CSAIL.
Earlier today the director of the GNOME Foundation requested that RMS resign from the FSF, and said severing ties with the FSF could happen if he didn't step down.
I think there was more social pressure for him to resign from FSF, and more institutional pressure for him to resign from MIT/CSAIL. The institutional pressure probably wasn't as painful, but was more forceful. I think he'd probably been holding back the pressure he felt to get the FSF thing over with for a while, but hoping for the controversy to die down, but when he was forced (or practically forced) to resign from MIT/CSAIL it became clear he wasn't going to win, and he decided to get it over with. Perhaps he'll be sleeping better tonight.
What he said was stupid and disgusting. People sometimes over-estimate the amount of latitude the organization they work for will give them to do this.
The technology industry is taking baby-steps towards actual inclusivity and diversity of thought -- and not this dumbass "I want to be free to say stupid offensive shit with impunity" flavor of "inclusivity" that people around here seem to champion. That is a Good Thing and organizations like MIT and the FSF need to be very careful about whom they let represent them.
As far as I'm aware Stallman has neither been arrested nor has his website been torn down, so he's welcomed to continue to make whatever good and bad points he feels like and the rest of us are welcomed to judge him as we wish: smart, stupid, ignorable, or maybe even abhorrent to the point where maybe he shouldn't be representing a place like MIT. Or the FSF.
If your "inclusivity" stops at Stallman, it seriously lacks performance. You use the wrong word. What you desire is conformity.
edit: Additionally, because I think this isn't obvious here, Stallman opened up the knowledge about software to the whole world and put energy in keeping it that way. Anyone was able to profit from this.
He wants people to be treated in a uniform and equitable way, yes.
That doesn't mean people "have to conform", but that our treatment of people should not be diverse: it should be the same for everybody, and accomodating of their diversity within the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
RMS has been treated in the same way anybody else would be. He hasn't been given special treatment. We are therefore being consistent as a society in our treatment of him.
Right now, I can hear people already screaming about diversity of opinion, but they're missing the point: equality and diversity is not about a right for anybody to behave however they want, but for the treatment of those behaviours to be fair and equitable.
RMS has been treated fairly and equitably: he has not been arrested or imprisoned. MIT have behaved in a way consistent with any other employee, and FSF have been consistent with any other organisation trying to protect a public perception for a wider cause.
In this respect, he is not a brave contrarian warrior tackling an unjust society. He's a man who treats other people rudely and says things 95% of the population find unjustifably crude and offensive who has found himself at odds with clear and explicit employment law and codes of conduct.
No one's saying he's brave or contrarian here. He said something incredibly stupid, but (a) not the horrifying thing that news outlets are accusing him of, and (b) certainly not something worth trying to ruin his life over. This kind of misrepresentation and witch-hunting shouldn't even be done in rare circumstances, do you honestly believe that everyone should be treated like this?
There have also been numerous stories from those around him at MIT about inappropriate conduct with students and staff.
The flip side of diversity is inclusion and those actions ran counter to MIT's own policies on an inclusive workplace (if you want a legalistic justification for him needing to leave).
At the same time, though, diversity can't be a cover for actions that are harmful to the larger community. Many places in the world still have strict social pressures against other sexual orientations. Saying you want diversity and inclusion, but excluding gay people—that would be conformity. However, being around queer folks does not actively harm the workplace environment or social culture. However, asking new female students if they want to go out with you, or being grossly insensitive to the plight of sexual assault victims is harmful to a non-trivial portion of the lab.
I would argue that, while RMS is a rightfully accomplished activist and computer scientist, his removal at this point in time makes CSAIL a more inclusive place. Those who might stay away because they're worried about his reputation or hurtful insensitivity—say, young female students, often underrepresented in science—may be more willing to work there.
I am not affiliated with either MIT or the FSF, so my social norms have little to do with it.
Anyway, you're playing the dumb little game that people like to play with this topic: "If you're so 'tolerant' why won't you tolerate people saying offensive shit?"
And you've heard the answer a million times, I bet, you just won't accept it: Because it silences higher-quality diverse voices and "asshole who says repellent things" is already a wildly overrepresented class of person in the tech industry.
> You use the wrong word. What you desire is conformity.
This seems to be a pretty common paradox.
The people who promote "diversity" (and sometimes even diversity of thought!), never accept anyone who wants to debate the nuances of that concept, nor how that may best be implemented.
Basically they demand conformity to the one "diverse" view and their definition of diversity. You're either with them or you're "part of the problem".
You'd think at some point they would notice how they come off ass utterly hypocritical.
Not true at all. People who want to increase diversity debate freedom of speech and what makes for “diversity” all the time. If you’re not hearing it, maybe you need to listen more carefully.
In my experience people who say what you’ve said above actually don’t want debate: They’re frustrated that other people have made their choices and wish to either belabor the topic endlessly or filibuster and waste everyone’s time. You may have freedom of speech, but you do not have an enshrined right to be debated against. There are only so many hours in the day and people must get on with their lives.
RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.
There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky.
The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other" they can because they're a fan of RMS is disturbing.
This isn't us vs. them.
This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch.
How is it we value free speech, but there are certain discussions you just cannot have, even in a rational and measured way, without risking making yourself completely unemployable. You should be able to have a questionable viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your career.
The consequences here are out of line. You can be reprimanded to take your discussions to a non company venue, in a situation like this, but fired is over the top.
Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
It's pretty clear with the age difference being what it is, this is exactly what statutory rape laws are for. But it is also incongruous that somehow if she was a year older it would be ok. It's also fucked up that if Minsky were 19, the consequences would be the same. Maybe there's a better law to be had here, but how would we ever know if you can't even have the discussion?
I'm appalled by how free speech is under attack lately by the outrage machine.
"How is it we value free speech, but there are certain discussions you just cannot have, even in a rational and measured way, without risking making yourself completely unemployable. You should be able to have a questionable viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your career."
I agree with this statement.
Stallman has been a problematic person for a long time. I'm no fan of his. If after a while the university had said, "Enough is enough, Richard, you need to shape up or get out." I would have understood that.
However, that's not what I think happened. What happened was he shared an opinion on a hot-button issue, pedantic and maybe gross, and unfortunately had that go viral and was so hounded out of his position.
If Stallman's position is wrong, we should be able to rationally come to that conclusion as a society. He should be allowed to be wrong. If his opinion is so problematic that it makes him a real liability for the university, his removal should come after a period of deliberation, not after a flash of public outrage.
I can understand arguments that Stallman's position is a questionable hill to die on regarding the Epstein revelations, that even choosing to weigh in on this makes it seem like his priorities are out of order. I can also understand the argument that the email list he was arguing on was the wrong location to voice his opinions and he was making students uncomfortable. I also understand the idea that he should have been corrected by the university, either for this event or for his past behavior.
But what I don't understand, is this idea that firing people in response to media shit-storms is somehow something to be applauded.
> If Stallman's position is wrong, we should be able to rationally come to that conclusion as a society. He should be allowed to be wrong.
I share this frustration, unfortunately with many HN discussions as well.
When someone states a position that the majority finds repugnant, IMHO the most productive (long-term) approach is this:
Step 1. Identify where the minority and majority views diverge in terms of logical justification. With majority-repugnant views, this may require going back to very basic assumptions. E.g., rape is morally wrong, it's appropriate public policy to prevent moral wrongs, etc.
Step 2. Starting from there, try to understand why the views diverge, and debate which side (if either) has better justification.
I think this approach fails at least half the times I try it, though. A few guesses why:
- During Step 1, people jump to the assumption that I'm advocating the majority-repugnant position, rather than working within this two-step process. Once my character / motives are impugned, reasoned discussion seems to end.
- Many people are unable to engage in logical debate regarding ethics. And in frustration, or to subconsciously avoid having to accept that gaps exist in their ability to logically debate some topics, they are unwilling to engage in proper debate.
- Something in my mannerism is off-putting, or I'm in a forum where few people are willing to engage in a debate lasting more than several minutes :(
This isn't a seminar, so this isn't the forum where one can help change minds or come to a conclusion logically. The best you can hope for is to plant seeds and expose people to perspectives they might not be aware of. I've read of some studies where people generally clam up when presented with contradicting information (which sucks). Who knows though, at the very least you will change one or two minds, which can help if not a little.
I've also observed this. It seems to me that politics (which I'll use as a reasonable proxy for controversial views) has increasingly become more like a sport than an exercise in civic responsibility. As I like data I think one way to measure this is split ticket results. In 2016 34 states had senatorial elections. Each and every state voted the exact same way for senate and the presidency. This is hardly surprising in today's world, but this hadn't happened in more than a century. [1]
The point of this is that as people start to integrate political views into themselves (as opposed to just a view - something that's subject to change as the evidence does) it makes debate difficult. In many ways we're becoming more akin to religious nations. You're unlikely to find a nice healthy debate about the value, worth, and viability of Islam in most Islamic Nations. It is because such values have been integrated into the individuals themselves instead of being kept at arm's length.
And as a tangent one thing I would add is that it obviously was not always this way. During the Islamic Golden Age Islamic nations were world leaders in learning, education, and the collection of wisdom. We still retain fragments of this time in our language today. For instance Algebra, from the title of Ilm al-jabr wa'l-muḳābala by al-Khwarizmi around 800AD. During this time of growth and learning all things were open to question, including Islam itself. And then along came a lovely man by the name of Al-Ghazali [2].
In response to religious skepticism, which Al-Ghazali was unable to effectively combat on direct logical grounds, he chose to develop a new philosophy. And in his new philosophy he preempted skepticism by suggesting that there were no natural laws at all. When a leaf catches fire it is not because it was exposed to a fire or because it reached a certain level of heat but because, and only because, God willed it happen at that exact moment. And so the study of 'natural laws' is nonsensical, as detailed in his work 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers.'
And that idea, enabling one to revoke all logic and criticism and simply adopt the dogma without question or concern, was met with resounding praise and endorsement. That was 900 years ago, but this ideology remains a key component of Islam to this day. At the same time this was happening a lust for learning was just starting to take off in Europe... Kind of interesting to imagine that we could be on another precipice of change when 200 years from now e.g. China has become the world leader in education and people ponder the decline of the anglosphere.
Or this could be little more than the regular waxing and waning of insanity that in 20 years, perhaps sooner, will feel as distant as parachute pants.
He's clearly a freethinker, and we have all gotten a lot of advantages from his courage doing his thing and making his vision for FOSS a reality.
Now he's said his thoughts on this too... it's legitimate for him to do so and "problematic" everyone is in a huge panic to punish him in case the mob should get set on them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
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.
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?).
> 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?
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)
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."
> 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 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.
I'm sorry, no. Women at CSAIL cultivated plants in their office because they knew it would keep him out of their offices. He's a train wreck and has needed to go for a while.
> Stallman has been a problematic person for a long time. I'm no fan of his. If after a while the university had said, "Enough is enough, Richard, you need to shape up or get out." I would have understood that.
According to the Register, this is the position of both the SFC and GNOME
> On Monday, the Software Freedom Conservancy called for his resignation. "When considered with other reprehensible comments he has published over the years, these incidents form a pattern of behavior that is incompatible with the goals of the free software movement," the group said in a blog post. "We call for Stallman to step down from positions of leadership in our movement."
> So did the GNOME Foundation's executive director Neil McGovern, who said Stallman's Minksy defense email was "the straw that broke the camel’s back."
Unfortunately, that reads like them finding historical justifications so a mob-induced disassociation doesn't look like it's mob-induced. They had time anywhere between "over the years" and few days ago to pull the trigger. Or they could wait a few days and do it 'after careful consideration'. Whether they bowed to crowd pressure or just wanted to score virtue points, this diminishes their stance in my view.
I trust that you know GNOME has had beefs with Richard Stallman at least as far back as the way he treated Mono developers (not the Mono project, but individuals). And I recall that, coincidental with that, his "Saint Ignucius" routine delivered in 2009 at Gran Canaria had some gross sexist commentary in it, too, which Lefty Schlesinger--a member of the GNOME Advisory Board at the time--called him out on, too.
You're right that this isn't new, but at some point the camel's back breaks and the idea that it's so implausible that what he said happened to, y'know, really upset people when they read it and that they'd had enough--well, it's a pretty cheap charge on your part.
Maybe I'm just getting too cynical, but this is not the first nor second time I've seen an outrage manufactured by a social media post of someone who took offense at a minor transgression, which ended up costing the transgressor their job.
I didn't know that GNOME has had issues with Stallman before, though I do believe it now and can certainly imagine it; I learned a few new, bad things about his behavior that I didn't know prior to today. Still, my point is - if they wanted to get rid of him for a list of valid reasons, they could've done it earlier, or they could've waited for the current storm to blow over and do it then. They picked this moment, and unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the timeline, they must've known it'll get carried by the media. So for better or worse, out of all possible opportunities, they picked the one where RMS is a subject of borderline-libelous and utterly nonsense shitstorm. Sure, people got upset when the news broke, but that's the thing with Internet witch hunts - people get upset over lies, and react without thinking, further fueling the avalanche.
Perhaps they do not believe it is utterly nonsense. I don't think it's nonsensical and I read the original-source thread before any of the follow-up reporting came out about it to potentially bias my opinion (beyond my bias of "Stallman is a creep" that I've known about second- and third-hand for a decade). His behavior was appalling: the attempt to construct a situation wherein someone Stallman knew personally happened to have clean hands while hanging out with a known pedophile and sex-trafficker of children, and then judging a protest through that lens, is just not okay, and even if he didn't have a history of gross behavior--which he does--I'd have had to have a real good reason not to eject him at speed from any business or institution over which I had authority for that alone. That it wasn't an isolated incident, and was known to not be isolated before this happened (more on that in a sec), would likely only harden my resolve to show him the door.
While it was known to not be isolated beforehand, it's pretty clear to me that a number of people have felt safe to tell their own stories in the couple days since this broke. I live near MIT but did not attend, and so I am not in any particularly privileged circles; despite that, this incident prompted a lot of people to speak up about RMS's consistent bad personal behavior as well as his bad public behavior. These sorts of things have a way of providing courage to people who have felt suppressed--someone is brave enough to kick one rock and dozens more come with. I would submit that if a nobody like me is hearing that stuff it is a near-certainty that people with hire-and-fire authority at MIT, and in decision-making roles at the FSF and GNOME, are hearing it and likely more.
This is what makes most of the protestations in this thread (not, I stress, the ones that you're laying out) so disheartening. On one hand you've got people adjusting their pince-nez and going "well, really, don't we need to have a conversation about statutory rape?" (we don't), while you've got another contingent who are all about clapping for pedophiles to "own the libs". It's just...really gross, and it's not about "free thinking" or "free speech" at all. (And it never really is.)
I might be biased otherwise (RMS lost a lot in my eyes due to new information I learned in this thread), and my initial introduction was the Medium post that started the media storm, but reading RMS's writing, I saw him explicitly not absolving Minsky from wrongdoing, but getting pedantic about the language, in an attempt to ensure the accusations being flung around are as close to what (he believed) could be made with available information. I immediately thought, "man, this is about the worst time to be pedantic, people will eat you for this alive", but honestly, trying to make the accusations wielded against a deceased friend accurate is laudable.
Much like I'm disgusted by some of the things I've learned today, I still feel that the original Medium post and the latter media reporting based on it are essentially character assassination performed to push a cause and (in the case of the media reporting) push ads. That's why I called it utterly nonsense.
I agree that things come in waves once you open the floodgates; RMS being criticized for one instance of bad behavior gives a reason to air other (perhaps less known) stories from the past. From my point of view, given that I consider this particular outrage over this particular misbehavior grossly overblown and based on mischaracterization, I'm just disappointed the camel broke its back immediately, legitimizing the current outrage. Even if getting rid of him for all the past transgressions, I would feel much better if they waited a few days.
> What I don't understand, is this idea that firing people in response to media shit-storms is somehow something to be applauded.
1. RMS wasn't just some random guy in the foundation, he was supposed to be a leader which means he should be held to a higher standard. Firing someone who doesn't meet that standard means your organisation has integrity which is important and should be applauded.
2. The downsides for keeping him around, especially since RMS didn't seem to be all that apologetic, are also important. The goals of the FSF are not advanced by being pushed into this media storm.
If FSF didn't do something, they would have been forced to answer alot of questions in the media about how they actually feel about age of consent laws, whether they took any money from Epstein and/or Minsky, how they felt about Epstein and/or Minsky, etc., and would then have had to give a number of awkward statements about this mess. Then they would have also had to answer many of those same questions from their donors. And likely if the controversy gained traction, their largest donors may have then been forced to answer their own set of awkward questions from the media about this whole mess. Especially if those donors also had ties to MIT. At some point, many of them would have also reconsidered whether they wanted to donate money to FSF, which would also be bad for the organisation.
All of which is to say that it's not about free speech, it's about protecting the organisation.
Stallman hasn't been silenced in any way. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you like without consequence from private institutions and citizens, only that you may say whatever you like without consequences from the government et al.
Your conflation that free speech is under attack is disappointing - That's not what is happening here.
This has been said before, but free speech is beyond just government censorship and has a wider definition. Regardless of that, the idea that someone's livelihood is under threat due to their speech can be just as coercive as threatening a fine or jail for their speech. The idea that government chilling is someone kinder than private chilling is wrong.
> This has been said before, but free speech is beyond just government censorship and has a wider definition.
This has also been said before, but free speech specifically includes the right of others to dissociate from you because of your speech, as a central aspect of their freedom of speech, and in fact such dissociation is a central part of the concept of the marketplace of ideas supported by free speech.
> the idea that someone's livelihood is under threat due to their speech can be just as coercive as threatening a fine or jail for their speech
Yes, the fact that our society doesn't provide a minimal non-market guarantee of livelihood makes free interaction coercive economically coercive for many people. The problem is not with free interaction, however.
But my freedom of speech should trump your freedom to spin up angry Internet mobs that proceed to turn my words into lies that they use to rip my life apart.
Time will come there will be regulations aiming to fix that, because slander laws apparently aren't enough. And then people will come out and talk about freedom of speech, but the only answer will be, "you had it, and you misused it, and almost ripped the society apart".
> But my freedom of speech should trump your freedom to spin up angry Internet mobs that proceed to turn my words into lies that they use to rip my life apart.
Your freedom of speech doesn't trump anyone else's freedom of speech. If someone is knowingly or recklessly spreading harmful lies, you have recourse for that, but freedom of speech includes freedom of angry speech, and outside of harmful knowing and reckless lies, it included the freedom to be wrong in your speech.
There has to be a give and take, otherwise this logic can justify many things we've decided is wrong. Things for example like firing someone trying to unionize or for being black or a woman. There is a difference between freedom of association for an individual and freedom of association between a company/organization and its employees or members and that is part of why.
We have a give and take, it's called a "protected class". It lists reasons you can't fire people and includes reasons like being black or being a woman. We can update the laws to protect people in other classes as well, but I don't see anyone clamoring to make "defenders of pedophiles" or "creeps who alienate their coworkers" a protected class.
Yeah, because that would solve problems. Honestly, the same people out for blood would be church types in the 18th century. And by the mail in question I sincerely question the competence of the MIT in general, because Stallman was actually correct.
If somebody doesn't want to associate with somebody I think that's of course 100% fine, even if in response to nothing more than what somebody said. But if somebody chooses not to associate with somebody because of an online mob [1] - that's not so okay. Granted some line does have to be drawn here. I think it's great that social media was able to 'touch' an 'untouchable' like Weinstein that would have been impossible without the protection of a mob. But now that we've unleashed the beast, it's starting to gnaw at anything it can find. And Stallman's far from an innocent, but he's being depersoned here for some relatively tepid comments.
[1] - This event was started by somebody sending a copy of a discussion on a private mailing list to a third party. This third party then took social media and shared it. It fell flat, except for a handful of 'Twitter activists'. They then started spamming it off to their followers and media outlet they could find. Some of the clickiest baitiest institutions took it up along with some completely unrelated Twitter personalities. It all spun what were relatively innocuous comments into limited context outrage bait and that then caught the outrage train spot on.
"Well, as it turns out, your Hollywood career promptly ended and you were blacklisted by every studio for saying, in the middle of the 50s Red Scare, that Karl Marx had some good ideas about the sociology of capital. But a court ruled that none of that treatment violated the First Amendment, therefore no one is allowed to be worried or have any negative emotion about what happened you, and hence no one's speech could have been chilled into silence by those events."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
McCarthyism was a direct violation of the first amendment. This does not compare.
Did you miss that I was referring to the non-Congressional aspect of the Red Scare i.e. the studios privately blacklisting communist sympathizers?
In case anyone missed my general point there, it was:
One can be worried about the chilling effects on speech, regardless of who is doing it; dismissing such concerns "because it didn't violate a law"[1] is confused, and a kind of category error.
[1] edit: or, in your case, relying on a court for all relevant judgments about this matter
Whatever you say might not even be free from consequences from the government. Freedom of speech is a bit of a nebulous concept in that sense.
I don't think the distinction between government and private institutions is that meaningful though. When a constitution is preventing the government from infringing upon a right it's usually a good idea if that right is protected against other people as well. In fact freedom of speech is covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly wasn't intended to only protect people against their own governments.
What about the right to air a private conversation in front of general public for express purpose of forcing one's employer to disassociate from a person?
Consider this: were you to come to GP's office and show GP's boss a printout of them saying controversial things on HN, demanding GP's termination, GP would most likely keep their job and there would be a good chance you'd get kicked out by security. In order to get a company to fire someone, there needs to be a public mess, and those rarely happen organically. In this case, and other similar firings for wrongspeak that I can think of, a public storm was created intentionally.
Can't see it as anything else than a weaker, non-lethal form of swatting.
I'm not sure how "private conversation" should be defined. If someone wrote something on HN, is it really private? In the case of RMS, I don't know enough about this mailing list to know whether it was private or not.
I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot. For instance, a governor of Puerto Rico was apparently sending homophobic and misogynistic messages around in a private messages. Is it less bad for being in a private conversation?
To your hypothetical: If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right.
> I'm not sure how "private conversation" should be defined.
I'm not sure either. HN, or CSAIL mailing list, are community chatrooms that sometimes spill out into the world at large, but their day-to-day activity concerns their respective communities. You do not expect to see what you wrote there aired in mainstream news.
> I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot.
I suppose it doesn't in the case of publicly recognizable people or public officials; this sort of comes with the territory. But what private (or semi-private) conversations introduce in this picture is a "kill chain" - a chain of people or organizations involved in taking a private message and turning it into a mob forcing one's employer's hand. I think it's worth to take a closer look at that chain - especially in this case, where you can clearly witness an increasing level of misrepresentation happening. The original post, for instance, stayed just a bit shy of making accusations that could be subject of a libel lawsuit, implying but not stating a lot of things. And then the media coverage did its usual misrepresentation amplification.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for shooting the messenger - just that there should be some pressure in the society which ensures messengers are communicating their messages accurately. Ironically, the subject of this outrage is that pressure - RMS attempting to correct inaccuracies.
> If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right.
Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too. But you're right, it's technically your right to try. But still, I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry.
Your point about the "kill chain" is well taken. I have not having paid enough attention here to have followed it in this case. But I certainly think the lack of nuance in the media is absolutely a real problem with many bad consequences.
> Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too.
Yes, absolutely.
In an ideal world, if there isn't a deeply troubling reason to be upset, a respectable media outlet should (in an ideal world) push back. And an employer should want to defend its employees against trumped up nonsense.
In this world, I fully appreciate that many media outlets love controversy and clicks, and it may be easier for a company to just fire someone than stand up for them and deal with said shit-storm.
> I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry.
I agree completely that trying to end someone's career is very extreme. I take no position regarding the specific case of whether or not RMS should have resigned.
I would, though, push back against drawing an equivalence between swatting and trying to end someone's career.
I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career. For instance, if I had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred of {women, men, gays, straights, Blacks, Whites, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, ...}, that would be deeply problematic. If I then saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group, it would seem very reasonable to object strongly to them continuing in their career.
> I would, though, push back against drawing an equivalence between swatting and trying to end someone's career.
I'm not standing 100% by this analogy, but the similarity is that in both cases someone, out of anger or spite, abuses a huge lever the society has to punish misbehavior just to ruin someone's day, but the lever has a good chance of ruining someone's life. This works for both "SWAT team" and "virality on social networks" as values of "lever".
> I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career.
In your example, it would be reasonable to object strongly - given that you had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred, like if you "saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group". I'd still hope you'd try the proper channels first, but if they fail, this is a matter of public importance. But the kind of thing we saw here - in this RMS story and other public outrage stories - doesn't meet the standard of evidence you described.
(Also, law enforcement is a somewhat special case, because it's a position of privilege and power, when one acts with authority of the state. You definitely want to police people wielding this power aggressively, but you shouldn't apply the same aggressiveness to random folks doing regular jobs, like scientists or plumbers or programmers. Former is preventing abuse of power; latter is just destroying someone's livelihood through vigilante mob justice.)
So what I'm saying isn't "don't ever go after one's career", just don't do it if your reasons are that you are offended by something you read. Ruining someone's livelihood like this is one of the most extreme form of damage you can legally do to another human being; it's thoroughly aggressive act, and it should only be done in circumstances justifying it. Words alone almost never are.
Does society have a right to not be associated with it? If every individual has that right, then a collection of those individuals working together retain that right if they so choose to do so.
If grouping up people does cause them to lose that right, perhaps that characteristics of rights kicks into effect when dealing with sufficiently large institutions, especially ones who have significant tie in with government far beyond some small mom and pop employer.
So let's have a new word for situation like this, describing the case when someone spins up an Internet drama around another person so that the resulting fallout ruins that person's life. There is still huge harm done, and it bypasses the court system.
I interpret it as the burning desire to impose those consequences, without sufficient thought as to whether it fits the crime. People want to be a part of something, even if it's an angry mob.
Whether it's good or bad for society is a complex topic, but spending your time riling up a digital mob every time someone says something controversial can't be a personally healthy way to live.
That’s a fairly glib response to a phenomenon which is magnified and made more damaging by recent changes in social media technology.
It’s an old saying that a lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Now it’s more like, 10 times around the world, and nobody even gives a damn what the truth ever was.
Or to put it another way, wrong-think statements can be weaponized against the speaker more effectively than ever.
Calling it wrong-think is so blatantly untrue. Orwell was talking about governments subjecting citizens to extreme censorship. Societies have always been able to do this without governments, that's how cultures are formed.
Did you miss the part when he explained his reasoning, and then another part where after discussing his reasoning and state of current research he realized he was wrong, changed his mind, and retracted earlier statements? I guess you might have, it was years ago.
Or did you, again, mean correcting language so that allegations made were accurate, allegations that later turned out to be discredited by witness statement?
EDIT: Turns out the realization and retraction statement was published 3 days ago, so in all honesty you could argue this was a reaction to mounting public pressure - but there isn't much evidence that he's lying here either.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
Cultures can have varying degrees of tolerance for diverse viewpoints, e.g. anything from mobs on Twitter to social credit scores in China. Attacking someone's livelihood for raising a philosophical question is somewhere on that spectrum.
There are a lot of incendiary political topics de jour where it's obvious that important voices are being silenced. See, for example, the pseudoaddiction post from SSC yesterday. Popular uprisings are often based on kernels of truth, but the conversation becomes distorted when experts or just laypeople with diverse viewpoints decide, fuck it, it's just not worth the liability of weighing in.
A couple weeks ago there was a story about a minor girl in high school charged by a prosecutor and found guilty by a judge of distributing child pornography--upheld on appeal--for texting her friends a video of herself. [1] But if it's political suicide to even try to have a conversation about how the laws on child pornography could be harming children, then it will never be fixed.
So at some point it should be acceptable for someone to stick their head out and say, "This term 'sexual assault' it doesn't really mean what most people think it means a lot of the times. It would make for much healthier discussion if we could be more specific!" Or, "These arbitrary age barriers (which change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) can catch innocent people engaging in consensual intimate acts." And it's also OK for someone else to say, "That's just not what happened in this case, because <reasons>... and you're blinded in this case by your relationship with the accused." But at the end of it, for everyone to agree that there was a conversation in good faith and everyone can decide for themselves who's right, wrong, or an imbecile trying to cover for a friend, without demanding a head on a platter.
You can take a look at what Lessig wrote about Ito [2] and likewise come away from it entirely incensed and calling for Lessig to resign, or pondering whether the story is more complex than the headline. Where in that case, the NYT took a complex issue that Lessig tangled with, and turned it into;
“It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying.”
You assemble the evidence before as impartial a committee as you can, and you let them make the decision. I think in this case Stallman is an offensive personality who says offensive things on company time using company equipment. That's going to be a no-brainer.
That said, I have a nagging worry from watching some videos of his behavior that he is mentally ill and there might be a backlash from that.
But why we can't allow a process like that to transpire before passing judgment is beyond me. Why wishing such an impartial judgment upon him is downvote worthy is really worrisome to me. That's not what western democracies are about as I understood them up to now.
I Just do not believe we should make career-ending decisions like this based on the rage of a mob on social media, that's literally a Black Mirror episode (and a really bad episode of The Orville as well). I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire. Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well?
> Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well?
No. But I do think you're not really looking at this situation objectively. Here's what you've said:
1. It's clear that an objective board should have fired RMS
2. We shouldn't make these decisions based on mobs
Additionally, we know he was fired. With that information, you can't make any conclusions. How and why are you so certain that some board didn't weigh the evidence and pass objective judgement? The problem with this fear of "cancel culture" (which as others have mentioned is really just "holding powerful people accountable when they do bad things culture"), is that so far I haven't seen any evidence that the bad things people fear have happened. RMS did a bad thing. He faced consequences for a thing that even you agree was a bad thing. Your only concern is that it is possible, not even certain, that the method by which he faced consequences for an action that we both agree was bad and deserved consequences might have not have been up to a standard that few employees anywhere get.
I want to stress that last bit: very few employees are afforded the privilege of an impartial committee to decide whether or not they should be fired in any circumstances. You're arguing that RMS should get a stronger protection than your average employee (either that or that workers should, in general, have much, much stronger protections than we currently give them).
tl;dr:
> I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire.
To me, this looks like exactly what happened. Why are you complaining?
I think your understanding of the tech industry is rather unlike mine. I have been a manager previously and there is quite a bit of documentation and process involved in terminating anyone, so much so that a lot of really bad apples can jump teams without getting terminated if they time it well.
Even when they're caught, they get put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which is shorthand for giving them 60 days to find a new job or to turn their life around internally. Usually, it leads to the former, sometimes the latter. I've seen both.
It's an imperfect and biased process. But the attempt is usually made because HR fears unjustified termination lawsuits despite the "at will" employee status of just about everyone.
Unless they've tried to hack the company's servers for private data, I've never seen anyone fired on the spot without the above process unfolding. Maybe your experience differs?
PS I also think Charles Manson and The Unabomber were unambiguously guilty. That doesn't change my opinion that they deserved the trial they got.
PPS If as amyjess seemingly suggests that female professors at MIT repeatedly filed complaints against him and nothing happened, well then carry on Twitter mob, good job, seriously.
> I think your understanding of the tech industry is rather unlike mine.
RMS isn't an employee of the Tech industry. He's a university something (visiting professor, I think, but not a tenured or official faculty position). Members of the tech industry are also unusually privileged in this regard. Ask a line cook or an employee at a department store if they're given a PIP if they are underperforming. And again, by all accounts, it is possible, and even likely, that there was such a process spurred on by the twitter mob. So its not clear to me what your complaint is. To address it, let me be more explicit: What would you like MIT to have done differently in this situation?
As I see it, they have a few options. They could of course not fire stallman. We agree this is unacceptable. Objectively he deserves to be fired. They could have already fired him, this is perhaps the best solution but requires time travel or foresight MIT lacks. I guess this suggests MIT hasn't yet developed that technology or skill. They could wait to fire him, which costs them PR, and potentially causes others to resign, for no gain (they're going to fire him). Or they could do what they did: fire him now. Again I wonder: what are you complaining about?
> PS I also think Charles Manson and The Unabomber were unambiguously guilty. That doesn't change my opinion that they deserved the trial they got.
You're conflating being fired from a job and being imprisoned, or in Manson's case, sentenced to die. Those two things aren't remotely comparable.
You might want to look into the story of Harris Fogel. He was a tenured professor who was unceremoniously terminated for seemingly correctable or even unintentional behavior. He's suing.
Stallman OTOH didn't even have tenure. The bigger story for me is if repeated complaints of sexual harassment (leg grabbing etc) went nowhere until now. That's unacceptable and I suddenly side with the Twitter mob in that case because if so he's had his due process already. And in that case, not only is he an ass, but he probably drove a lot of women out of the field and that can't be undone.
> The problem with this fear of "cancel culture" (which as others have mentioned is really just "holding powerful people accountable when they do bad things culture")
That's, perhaps unintentional, misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what people worried about it mean by it. The problem with "cancel culture" is the propensity to "shoot first, ask questions later", the doling out of punishment grossly unproportional to the crime. Like in this case - ruining one's entire career for the crime of being pedantic and tactless on a semi-public mailing list[0]. Or, in another, overhearing a joke in a private conversation between two people and making a social media mess that resulted in termination of the joker.
The problem with "cancel culture" isn't the part where it aims to hold people accountable for their behavior. The problem is with the mechanism, which involves setting off a chain reaction. There's the wronged or felt-offended party and initial outrage, which gets amplified as the stories get reshared and republished, usually accruing misrepresentations and outright lies in the process, until the reaction fizzles out in a day or three, and punishment happens. You'll note here that the final impact is not correlated with the scale of the initial wrongdoing, but with how many people get outraged how fast, and how far they reshare, all of which is moderated by how misleading can the story be made and by what else is currently on the news.
I think it isn't fair to dismiss concerns of people worried that "holding people into account" - not just powerful ones, but regular ones too - increasingly often involves attempts at setting off a social equivalent of an ad-hoc, hastly-made fission bomb.
--
[0] - Yes, there's apparently patterns of worse behavior going back many years. But pulling the trigger in the middle of one of the bigger scandals in our industry, that's awfully convenient and points towards the actual reason not being related to past behavior.
> the doling out of punishment grossly unproportional to the crime. Like in this case - ruining one's entire career for the crime of being pedantic and tactless on a semi-public mailing list
The person I was discussing with agrees that Stallman's actions and history, combined, merited his resignation or removal. Yet they used the phrase "cancel culture" anyway.
Please don't blame anyone but Stallman for ruining his career. His history of pedophilia-apology, his history of acting badly, possibly to the level of harassment, around women at MIT, and recently his need to "well-acktually" statutory rape ruined his career.
> You'll note here that the final impact is not correlated with the scale of the initial wrongdoing, but with how many people get outraged how fast, and how far they reshare, all of which is moderated by how misleading can the story be made and by what else is currently on the news.
No, I don't note that. Pressure was put on MIT leadership by women at MIT, women who had historically been ignored when they raised similar issues about the same person in the past. As MIT said, this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
> that's awfully convenient and points towards the actual reason not being related to past behavior.
No it doesn't. It points to the trigger not being past behavior, with which I fully agree. It says nothing about the scale of the reaction by MIT or the FSF. Those were without a doubt informed by a pattern of behavior.
> Yet they used the phrase "cancel culture" anyway.
Perhaps because his resignation/removal didn't happen as a direct result of the combined history of transgressions, but only after someone took a fresh, minor offense and blew it out of proportion, so that it ended up in mass media. There's a difference between resigning (or being forced to) because of a pattern of bad behavior, and that plus having your name in the Forbes under a headline that contains a lie.
> Those were without a doubt informed by a pattern of behavior.
If this issue didn't blow up across the whole Internet, do you think they'd terminate him now?
> If as amyjess seemingly suggests that female professors at MIT repeatedly filed complaints against him and nothing happened, well then carry on Twitter mob, good job, seriously.
And add that it doesn't matter. If it takes a twitter mob to force MIT to finally act ethically and remove a person with a history of bad behavior, good thing twitter mob. The solution to your concern is simple: institutions should be more proactive about self policing. If RMS had been fired 10 years ago, this mob would have no reason to exist.
There has never been 'due process' when it comes to a private companies decisions regarding hiring or firing. Should we trust the government to make that decision for a private organization?
That's one of the purposes of HR. Watch any corporate harassment training video if you don't believe me.
TLDR: the accusation of harassment is 100% determined by the accuser. The determination of whether harassment occurred OTOH is decided by HR after judging the merits (or lack thereof) of the case.
I see no reason why MIT shouldn't have proceeded similarly. And while you might argue that's not 100% impartial, that's a lot better than a Twitter mob (to me at least).
Given the piles of video and text of Stallman being Stallman, and the "Hot Ladies" bit on his office door, do you really think they would have high-fived his conduct and told him to carry on? I'm cynical, but I'm not that cynical.
Or let's put this another way. The Unabomber and Charles Manson got their due process. Are you saying Stallman is worse than both of them? So I'm guessing you guys downvoting me no longer believe in our legal system? That'll end well I'm sure.
His sexually-inappropriate behavior towards women has been well-known for years. MIT has chosen to not do anything about it. The truth is that if HR thinks they can sweep something under the table to protect their superstars, they will.
That business card is wildly inappropriate I agree and I love the bit about the plants. Is there a story I'm missing here where complaints were filed and nothing was done? That would change my viewpoint 180 degrees here if so. Because that means the guy's behavior was repeatedly and officially pointed out to him and he IDGAFed the advice. It also seems like an even bigger story than Stallman himself on par with GOOG's behavior the past 5 years.
Do you think it's fair to be fired, should someone spin a social media storm against you? Do you think this dynamic becoming increasingly frequent is healthy for society?
That depends. If there are valid reasons for me to be fired, (as there were in this case), yes. Irrespective of any social media storm, I'd fire an employee who defended paedophilia or excused rape, statutory or otherwise.
As a business owner, if I felt that an employees continued employment was a net negative for my profitability, I'd be forced to let them go. Perhaps I could keep them for a while, but that's the case.
Yes, I think powerful people facing consequences for doing and saying absolutely abysmal things is a net good for society. Going from no, to some, in egregious cases, accountability is great. RMS shouldn't get a pass for this. Especially not since he's done the same thing before. Especially since now it's concrete and deals with real people and not just abstract ideas.
The threat of an abstract "you could get fired too for saying a truly terrible thing" falls flat because, well, I don't make a habit of doing that. You'd have better luck claiming that I benefit from people making statements that could get them mobbed. But that too is unconvincing: people who I benefit from sharing their views are pushed out anyway via structural dynamics, often due to the things powerful people who don't face consequences do and say.
And then of course, it's not like my life, or his would be ruined. Damore is, as I understand it, gainfully employed and mostly out of the public eye.
I'll ask my questions again since you didn't answer: what due process does one deserve before being fired? What of that did Stallman not receive?
> Irrespective of any social media storm, I'd fire an employee who defended paedophilia or excused rape, statutory or otherwise.
That's fair. However in this case, his "eccentric" views were widely known for years in the FS/OS community. It took a media shitstorm to turn that into a firing offence, which tells you it's not about the content of the views.
> As a business owner, if I felt that an employees continued employment was a net negative for my profitability, I'd be forced to let them go.
That's fair too, and similar argument can be made for a non-profit. At best all I could accuse the various organizations that disassociated with RMS is that they lack backbone and yield to pressure, or try to capitalize on the outrage, but that's not a problem.
Market entities do what they do. But they wouldn't have to, if the story wasn't spun. It's not the e-mails themselves that ended his career, it's how they were fed to the media and then blew up there - especially as this story shows how the reporting doesn't even have to be truthful; lying in a headline and not linking to primary source is standard journalism nowadays.
> The threat of an abstract "you could get fired too for saying a truly terrible thing" falls flat because, well, I don't make a habit of doing that. You'd have better luck claiming that I benefit from people making statements that could get them mobbed. But that too is unconvincing: people who I benefit from sharing their views are pushed out anyway via structural dynamics, often due to the things powerful people who don't face consequences do and say.
Today me, tomorrow you. Each of us has said something that could be misconstrued into a fireable offence, and the problem is that structural dynamics and mob sentiments change; if you accept people being labeled as undesirable for just expressing an atypical opinion and attempts at removing such undesirables from the society, don't be surprised if five years from now it happens to someone you like.
> And then of course, it's not like my life, or his would be ruined. Damore is, as I understand it, gainfully employed and mostly out of the public eye.
Damore is young, and its firing was on such weak grounds that there was a lot of people who wouldn't mind him on board once publicity died down. (At least that was just after the firing; I haven't followed his life since, but I hear that he ended up radicalizing; wonder if the mob ended up being the cause.) RMS is AFAIK 66, and haven't worked in software in 40 years. His job was essentially being an icon of the movement, and now that this was destroyed, he's essentially unemployable. At best, he'll retire.
> I'll ask my questions again since you didn't answer: what due process does one deserve before being fired? What of that did Stallman not receive?
I purposefully didn't use the words "due process". Anyway, I'll answer with a counterquestion: what protections do people deserve from being killed in a flood or an avalanche? Floods and avalanches kill people, that's what they do. And yet protections are instituted so that innocent people don't find themselves unexpectedly in harm's way. Similarly, companies fire people who become a net loss to them, but in recent years, there's been an uptick of cases where someone's private or semi-public conversations have been misconstrued and blogged or Tweeted about with the express purpose of causing a public outrage and ruin the career of that someone. Maybe we need to talk about protections from such events, and even focus on the people who push others under the train because they find their opinions offensive.
So, you're saying anybody should be able to avoid being fired simply by whipping up a social media storm against themselves? I can see a lot of possible abuses here.
A social media storm around you rarely works to your advantage. Sure, if you're lucky enough (spinning up a drama isn't a sure-fire thing), you may avoid getting fired until the ruckus dies down and reporters move to a different story (i.e. couple of days, maybe weeks), but your life at work becomes a living hell as you're now a persona non grata and good luck finding another job, where sane employers would prefer to avoid someone with history of spinning public outrage against companies for leverage.
To continue with military analogies, social media storms are like gas weapons. They're effective if launched at a distant enemy (though if you're not careful, the wind may carry it back towards you), and not something a force would use around itself when engaged in combat.
Do you think that Stallman's life was ruined. I, and I guess lots of people, will still highly value his contributions. But at the same time I think his comments warranted moving on and passing the torch of leadership of the FSF. It is very different to work as a regular software engineer or individual contributor, than as the figurehead of a foundation. I wonder if he will still get invitations to be a speaker, and if he does, if he will be willing to do it, at least for a time.
I rather wonder the opposite. Not "what will become of Stallman, without the FSF", but "what will become of the FSF, without Stallman". Will the FSF still have the public forum it once had without Stallman using his public speaking and his standing in the free software community on their behalf? It is perfectly conceivable that Stallman will move on to bigger and better things and the FSF will sink into obscurity.
Is nobody else at the FSF capable of public advocacy? It seems to me that Stallman's unique ability was formulating the FSF's ideals in the first place, but once the platform is laid out, anyone who holds those ideals ought to be at least somewhat capable of promoting them. Even before this particular incident, it seems rms was not exactly well liked as a spokesman.
Well. The thing about these public speaking engagements of his at universities and stuff: There is image transfer going on there from a software developer celebrity to a spokesperson on copyright and related public policy issues. (Like when Bono speaks on environmental issues).
I went to see a Stallman lecture when I was at university too. They had booked the biggest lecture theatre and it was packed. But why? If my friend comes to me and says "Hey, I'm staying late today to see a talk by random spokesperson John Doe advocating free software. Wanna join?", my reaction is going to be: "Meh." You can have that any day of the week at any university that's seen as a desirable forum for public policy debate. But: "Wanna see the guy who created emacs and a billion other bits of software every one of us uses every single day? Wanna stick around afterwards for conference food and exchange a few sentences of smalltalk so that, for the rest of your life, you can tell people you ACTUALLY MET HIM?" Then "Hell yeah, count me in!"
They won't see another penny from me. I assume a large amount of people will feel the same. Can't wait for Stallmans next project, I will be donating to that instead.
Honestly? I hope not, but the guy suddenly and unexpectedly got kicked out from FSF and MIT, two institutions that form the core of his life - and I imagine self-image. And now other organizations related to the movement he started publicly disassociated from him. That had to hit hard, and as 'seanmcdirmid points out, he's also 66 and essentially unemployable now.
So if you take everything a man has in life - everything he anchors his identity to - and destroy it, and leave little to no chance of regaining it, what do you think happens? Personally, I am worried.
This is what consequences for shitty behavior looks like. It's the same if someone who has a stalwart career suddenly assaults the secretary at the Christmas party. Sure he's a hell of a lawyer, but he's become more of a liability than an asset. It's capitalism, and self determination.
If RMS commits suicide because his life was ruined after someone lied and spun his linguistic pedanticism as support for sexual crimes, if that happens, will you come back and say that "this is what consequences for shitty behavior look like"?
Also, his wrong is again his language pedanticism - comparing it to actual assault like you did just now is disingenuous and precisely what the crowd did to RMS.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
And it's even worse than just that, since that's him freely associating in response to an article containing this:
> The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
and
> The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party. Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves.
we already have a word for it - mob mentality. I am not saying that it's the right way to go about things, but it's certainly not a violation of free speech
In a way it is. I propose that taking someone's messages from an e-mail group and publicly spinning them with intent to cause public outrage to force their employer to fire them is deeply unethical and should be discouraged regardless of and orthogonally to the content of messages in question.
There is a group of people on-line who like to point to the "paradox of intolerance" as a justification for Internet lynch mobs. But this paradox works both ways. What it says is that society needs to combat people who label others as undesirables, intending to remove them from said society. But if someone fighting the intolerants ends up labeling tangential people as undesirable and unleashing pitchforks on them, that person is an intolerant too, and needs to be stopped as well.
Gah. No. Keeping communications compartmented and secret is how creeps keep on creeping. If you write an email to an email list you don't have an expectation of privacy.
I'm not arguing for keeping communications private. I'm arguing for not trying to trigger a social media chain reaction with a general public, with an intent to harm someone, every time you felt angry reading that someone's post.
There's a difference between information being available to the general public, and putting a spotlight on that information.
Lack of proportion is the problem for me. Mr.Stallman could be censured - but again the people went after his position/job for what are at the best mis-guided or flawed statements.
If Mr.Stallman were to be in Epstein's Island well that is whole level of any issue.
Committing Rape and Questioning the logic behind defining the "act" of rape are not the same.
Or, it was annoying but tolerable, until an opportunity presented itself to score virtue points while having past problematic behavior to use for plausible deniability.
I meant this technically: it was tolerable because it was tolerated. They could've disassociated from him after any of his troubling statements. They didn't.
It is, perhaps, plausible that he's a popular enough individual that they were worried about a mob reaction, if you will, if they cut ties with him because he did anything short of try to defend rape.
But to be clear, that's still a bed of his own making.
Politics. He disregards politics and politicians and they eventually had enough weaponry to remove the threat his disregarding their political aims was to them. Nothing more.
It's always interesting to me when people try to downplay politics as somehow "less than" the technological and theoretical aspects of software engineering. I wonder what those people imagine software is for.
Yes, and it is also broader than just the first amendment. Part of being able to maintain a free society is having cultural norms that do not require employers to fire someone just because they said something that others disagree with or find objectionable.
The first amendment is really of no use if expressing opinions outside the norm causes you to be fired by social convention. In that case, only being independently wealthy affords one any freedom.
In this case, even founding his own organization based on his own values did not protect him from being fired.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In that vein, I would see the government limiting the ability for someone to speak out against anything as a violation of their Free Speech/First Amendment rights.
As written, this Amendment applies only to Congress, but it seems you reasonably infer that if the right of free speech is a limitation on Congress it should apply to state and local governments as well. Why wouldn’t it apply to other institutions operating in a public capacity, or operating with a public charter?
It has been "incorporated" to cover state and local laws by supreme court decisions, and that has not happened with places that are merely public spaces, and, in fact, the opposite has occurred. For example, you can be removed from a shopping mall if you refuse to leave when asked, and you were asked to leave because you were wearing a shirt that politely expressed a political opinion that either security or the management disagreed with. Unfortunately that is the constitution we currently have in the US.
Not sure why you say "Unfortunately that is the constitution we currently have in the US." after describing what is more a matter of how well we are living up to it.
A university is not a merely public place, but rather one which enjoys a charter from the state -- and numerous benefits as far as funding, taxation, access to information and research opportunities -- as an educational institution.
I think markets on private land like malls should have many of the same freedoms we enjoy in public spaces. Of course I think universities should as well. It’s unfortunate that in the second half of the 20th century we put so much of our public life on private property.
This is horribly incorrect. Freedom of Speech is a larger concept outside of how it is (and can even possibly be) codified in law. The US Bill of Rights is phrased in terms of a restriction on the government, because that's the only line that can be straightforwardly drawn within the framework of the Constitution.
I value free speech in that I value the government's inability to limit anyone's expression with only a few reasonable exceptions.
I don't take "free speech" to mean anyone can say anything without consequence. The government has a whole lot of power and it comes with limits like free speech.
That doesn't mean that people in my employ can say awful things and I should just ignore it.
Free speech doesn't extend to being protected from consequences for how you express yourself.
If you can't express yourself on certain topics, there's a chilling effect where people just don't talk about them and no further progress can be made. There are now plenty of topics like this including gender [edit: I should specify that it's fine to talk about gender, but only if you have certain permissible positions on the topic]. This list used to include other things like being pro gay rights, pro equality for races or gender - but at least you were able to have those conversations without fear of being lynched and society moved forward. You should be allowed to voice a viewpoint that's against the mainstream viewpoint without risk of making yourself unemployable.
It's atrocious that our academic institutions, which used to be a bulwark of free-speech are leading the charge here.
Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements. He perhaps should not have made them in a work forum, but the consequences here are way out of proportion to the "crime".
You've been throwing a lot of stones here, but I'm sure you've held or expressed viewpoints just as questionable at some time in your life. I know I have. Should you now be denied the right to make a living if they come to light?
Stallman's controversial opinions stood for ages when they were hypothetical.
But at this moment in time, they've intersected with the real-world activities of organizations that he has considerable influence over. He seems to have prioritized theoretical point-making over the organizational necessity of addressing people's concerns.
Running things and debating things are two different activities, and for Stallman those things are currently in conflict. Maybe he's tempermentally incapable of dealing with conflicting imperatives; in any case he seems to have taken the absolute route to resignation.
I think this is a better argument than merely talking about the content of the speech. That said the question is whether the punishment matches the severity of the crime. There was no due process here so we'll never know for sure.
That was not Stallman's statement.
In fact, Stallman's argument rests on the foundational belief that the girl was forced to service Minsky.
He reasons that because it would have been in the best interest of Epstein not to disclose the harm that's being done to the girl, she would have been convinced to present herself to Minsky as willing. Thus it is argued that Minsky might have had a sexual encounter without having realized that the girl is being forced to do this. In such a scenario, it is proper to accuse Epstein of harm, but wrongful to accuse Minsky of sexual assault.
All participants of the discussion should refer to the original MIT email thread and not base their opinions on secondary information. There is also a quote from a scientist who names himself as an eyewitness and clears Minsky of wrongdoing. He was not listed by the girl as present during the event and it may be too early to accept his words as the truth. However, if the girl's account corroborates his, then even the harshest critic should be obliged to exonerate Stallman's statement.
It reminds me of the role of the lead in "Twelve Angry Men".
No. Comparing the two acts is uncharitable. The 17 year old was exploited and faced a much worse wrong. Stallman was wronged in my opinion but of course it isn't comparable to it.
Honor the facts please. First Minsky was approached by Guiffre at the island, and Minsky turned her down. Guiffre was already 18 at that time according to one statement.
So both accusations on Minsky needed to be defended, which RMS did.
There was no sex, no rape, no violation of age of consent, just a lot of slanderous allegations by folks who had no idea about the background, and didn't read about it.
On the other hand the students allegations on their Facebook event had a proper basis, against MIT management. But this had nothing to do with RMS defense of Minsky.
There is rarely 'due process' when it comes to private institutions hiring or firing. Are you advocating for the government to intervene on behalf of citizens before allowing a company to make a financial decision?
This is an aside, but if you want my personal opinion, I wish workers had more power on their side in both hiring and firing (firing particularly). It need not take the form of the government intervening directly but regulation can't hurt.
Do you really think that no one has suffered for having conversations pro gay rights, civil rights, gender equality, and all those other previously inadmissible topics? No, they spoke publicly, and paid the (unfortunate) consequences of the day ... but they carried on because it was the right thing to do.
What exactly is it that we're trying to "express ourselves" about here? what "progress" are we trying to make on old men having sex with young girls?
If there's change to be made, then someone is going to have to weather the cultural storm that speaking out about it brings in order to bring change. If it's not worth weathering that storm, then maybe it's not worth having that discussion in the first place.
Of course not, it's my position that there shouldn't be such serious consequences for having a dissenting opinion. Minority opinions are in fact the only way we make progress in science our society. Everything accepted now was once a fringe idea.
There is a real conversion to be had about our statutory rape laws. They're absurd in some aspects. That's beside the point.
Yes, I know. But that's not what we're talking about now. We're taking about the objectionable comments he made now, rather than his long history of objectionable opinions. It probably affected the decision to fire him though.
That really is what we're talking about now, try as people might to ignore it. This was the last of a long string of statements and actions that Stallman had been repeatedly warned about.
Well, at the very least the Software Freedom Conservancy was talking about past behaviour, as did various other commentators.
You might be right that widowlark's comment was in reference to the Minsky defense specifically - I didn't read the exchange that led up to the comment that closely, and took its opening line about minority opinions as a reference to pedophilia apologia in general.
I want everyone to understand the medium his comments were made in.
This was not just a "work forum", it was a mailing list containing thousands of people in the MIT computer science community, including professors, researchers, administrative assistants, graduate students, and hundreds of undergraduates.
This isn't just a matter of his comments being inappropriate, it's also about him arguing them in an effectively public forum.
But Stallman replied to an email advertising a gathering to protest MIT's handling of the Epstein scandal.
I have no idea if that sort of political email is common in the mailing list, but if it is appropriate to share/advocate the protest, surely it should also appropriate to discuss the topic?
The original poster on the thread even raises a question of the ethics of having the discussion on csail-related before Stallman even gets involved.
I think people are missing the context of the level of shitshow that’s going on at MIT CSAIL right now with Epstein, Ito, Minsky, and now Stallman.
When the original story blew up over Media Lab and the Administration lied that they didn’t know anything about donations to Epstein, I can only imagine the chaos.
It's my understanding that a protest against Minsky was being advertised on the same mailing list. Was that an inappropriate medium for the protest to be advertised as well?
You would think universities would be a little more lax than a Fortune 500 company when it comes to freedom of expression . They certainly have been in many other aspects. You can rail all you want against the oppressive patriarchy and talk about toxic masculinity, but to question the statutory rape laws (which are different in every country, so clearly there are different viewpoints on the subject) - that's unpardonable?
It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Warn him to take the discussion elsewhere and then wait for the outrage storm to blow over. People have such short attention spans in these social media days anyway.
> You would think universities would be a little more lax
They were. A casual look at Stallman's history will show you that his views (and behaviors), as well as his discussion of them in a public forum, are not by any means new or unknown within the community. They _have_ been ignored for a very long time by the university, the FSF, etc, right until he chose to take this particular moment in time to repeat his views, specifically in connection with a recent scandal.
I think that this _is_ sad in the sense that had folks been stricter with him earlier on, perhaps he would have understood why it was not a good idea to continue doing that, and avoided making these specific public comments at this specific time. It's really hard for me to believe that no one has ever _tried_ to tell him to (essentially) "take the discussion elsewhere" about this stuff, so I have to assume that people did, but he did not think that he had to follow their advice: he relied on being able to say what he liked, wherever he liked, with no real consequences.
And until now, he was correct. But today, people no longer believe that it's ok to be heralded as a pillar of the community (which as both the president of the FSF and the holder of an honorary position at MIT, he is) and be able to say whatever you'd like in a public forum. And enough people believe this today to make these institutions be unable to just ignore his behavior indefinitely.
The great thing about this country is that others cannot define your own tolerances or lack thereof. The university had it's tolerance tested, and Stallman lost. If you don't like it, I encourage you to speak out like you are now. But it's not unfair, and it's not a violation of free speech or thought.
So if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well? Following your argument you could say a given company had its tolerance, it was tested and those people lost.
Firing people for political views, especially expressed in coherent not aggressive way is certainly violation of free speech and thought. It's also currently legal in US.
If they repeatedly harass women in work contexts they should be fired for that. Waiting until they say something controversial implies the organisation was just fine with the harassment.
> if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well?
Not all opinions are the same.
Advocating for open borders and basic income are fairly straightforward political opinions. So is being a member of the republican or democratic party, or saying you support lower taxes, or even that you voted for Trump. Had Stallman resigned over reactions to calmly expressing these type of opinions, the fallout would be very different, and I suspect most people would say something similar to what you've said, and side with him.
But if a person repeatedly says, in public, that our definition of pedophilia as a necessarily-bad thing isn't right, and that people are being too hard on the billionaires who recently got in trouble for this -- even if they do so calmly and coherently -- they are espousing views that many people believe would lead to actual harm to actual human beings. The same would be true for someone who openly supports fascism, or calls for the deportation of Hispanic-looking citizens (I want to avoid a straw-man here, so to be clear I am absolutely not saying Stallman supports these views; they're just examples).
In that case, don't other people have a right to react negatively to that?
As for the consequences of that reaction, that is somewhat proportional to the person's position. If that person was a gas station clerk who, outside of work hours, had posted something on a forum, then we'd again be having a different discussion. But the positions of President of the FSF and Visiting Scientist at MIT carry a lot more weight. Putting someone in these positions who not only holds but eagerly volunteers these types of views is seen as an implicit endorsement of these views by the FSF/MIT -- _especially_ when he chooses to broadcast these views directly to his work community, directly in defense of someone at the center of a recent scandal.
> Firing people for [their] views ... is certainly violation of free speech and thought
Stallman is free to _think_ what he wants. He's even free to _say_ what he wants -- he was never censured afaik. What he is no longer free to do is to continue doing so from the position of President of the FSF or a Visiting Scientist at MIT. Should an institution (such as MIT or the FSF) be forced to protect its personnel from all consequences for individually sharing _any_ opinion in any public forum? I don't think they should.
The thing is that there are many people out there who think that enforcing borders leads to actual harm to human beings and treat it as human right issue (detention camps etc.). On the other hand there are people who think open borders policy leads to actual harm to human beings as well (criminals getting to the country and hurting citizens etc.).
The line between fairly straightforward political opinion and what some people consider extreme is fairly thin in today climate. This is the case with Stallman's recent posting as well. It's hard to imagine (for me!) that the expressed opinion about the usage of the word assault or questioning sensibility of age of consent laws goes beyond reasonable discourse.
You have a point about pedophilia but that's from very long time ago. He also publicity stated he was wrong and thanked people who helped him understand that. He expressed that views in the distant past as well. He wasn't as prominent by then and he did it from what I understand on his private website.
One way or another having sex with 17 years olds is not pedophilia by any stretch of imagination. I consider his comments which he retracted long time ago irrelevant to current situation unless of course we consider it acceptable to dig out every controversial comment from the past to help with character assassination today.
I do think institutions schould take care to not fire people over outrage especially caused by expressing political/philosophical opinions. It's illegal in some countries and treated as common sense there. It is currently legal in US but it doesn't mean it doesn't have grave consequences for public discourse.
> Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements.
These problematic statements were made in the context of someone who has a long, long history of upsetting, angering and offending people with bad behaviour. People in CSAIL kept plants around them because Stallman hates plants and it functioned like garlic to a vampire.
Firing him may be disproportionate to the moment, but it's overdue given the history. The guy who fired him literally said "straw that broke the camel's back."
Interesting, that's different from why I value free speech. The idea is that dissent makes good societies stronger. When you fire a dissenter, even if they're a bad person, future dissenters (some of whom are good) realize that they have no principled protection. And that's true whether you're a government or a private firm.
I'm a leftist and I've always been on board with protecting speech. Those who don't don't know the history of the left in the US, the red scare, where the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" comes from, etc.
Free speech is generally accepted to be in the service of “political dialogue”.
In so far as Stallman was discussing the law, he was genuinely engaging in political dialogue; in so far as he was speculating about Minsky or the situation in question he was not.
To say that we can exercise speech but must face the “consequences” is just begging the question — what “consequences” are compatible with a free society? If my boss says it would be a great thing if California secedes from the Union, and I say I doubt that would go well, we rely so much on other states for water, &c, &c ... I may definitely offend him. How acceptable is it that a person be fired in that situation?
There is more to free speech than what the law says about it. No one here as far as I can see argues that forcing RMS out is illegal. People argue for the principle that you should be able to express your views without fear of losing your livelihood. The problem is that there is no universally trusted authority on what is and what isn't acceptable speech. I find what RMS said to be less outrageous than what I regularly hear from politicians in recent presidential debates. Does it mean I should start firing employees expressing those views because of "consequences" or "freedom of association"? It would lead to a tribal world where you either walk the exact line of your institution/employer/group or you're out possibly with grave consequences for your financial and family situation.
In my country it's illegal to fire people for their political views even if the employer finds them immoral and incompatible with the culture they want to foster. It's part of legal and social framework to protect freedom of expression. Freedom of expression neither starts nor end with what The Constitution says about it.
Free speech while extremely important cannot be used as a blanket cover to say whatever you want and expect not to suffer consequences. I’m free to call my girlfriend stupid every day, but I should expect the consequence of soon being single.
There are clearly mob reactions to things, but there are also clearly inappropriate speech that should have consequences.
What he said here wasn’t in isolation as some idle musing. context matters. He wasn’t talking about the theoretical of a 19 year old. He was talking about this in context of Minsky being a 74 year old man with a 17 year old girl. Maybe he wasn’t aware of the impact of his words, but that shouldn’t get him a free pass.
> Free speech while extremely important cannot be used as a blanket cover to say whatever you want and expect not to suffer consequences.
That's what Joe McCarthy and the House Committee for Un-American Activities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) said to leftists, union organizers, communists, and others in the 1950s. Is that the kind of company progressives prefer to keep, intellectually speaking?
Apparently the only difference between progressives and conservatives is which sacred cows that they're willing to mob you for for insulting. Fellow liberals, I beg of you, take heed; progressives are not our friends.
The difference in your example is that McCarthy was a government official, attacking political ideas, making what he did an absolute violation of free speech from the perspective of the first amendment. Is this really your best example?
I wonder where progressives get the silly idea that the Enlightenment philosophers that birthed liberalism said "Punishing people for speaking is bad if the government does it but its 100% A-OK if a mob does it." Perhaps you could show us some citations?
Because people listening to the speech also have the right to react to it. Or are you saying regardless of what you say I cannot take action because of it?
Should you also have a right to misrepresent the speech while agitating for someone's termination, in order for community and news outlets to pick it up, turn misrepresentation into lies and effectively force the termination to happen?
I don't like using the word "emergence", but there is a phenomenon here that's much more than a sum of its parts, and maybe should be considered differently. There's also the element of intent.
> Or are you saying regardless of what you say I cannot take action because of it?
"Take action", my, my, what a genteel phrase to describe ruining people's careers and personal lives. Very civilized of you. One wonders whether those crowds who stoned unbelievers in an earlier era would have simply described themselves as "taking action" as well?
I really don’t get this attitude of being able to say whatever one wants in whatever context and not have any consequences. If I’m in a position of leadership and openly discriminate again some group, especially repeatedly and consistently I should not expect to go on business as usual.
Maybe they dont care what enlightenment philosophers and liberalism has to say, when it's such a broken ideology that had no problems with tolerating gross inequalities related to race and gender, and have found philosophers and philosophies to follow that are less tolerant of blatant evil.
Or maybe they both value something higher then free speech when push comes to shove. For the far left its equality and protections of the vulnerable. For the far right is race, country, tradition and religion. So that seems like a pretty big difference actually.
> You should be able to have a questionable viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your career.
First, "lynch mob" is inappropriate and irrelevant. Given Stallman's statements, in the forum in which they were made, many reasonable employers would have fired him, with or without some "lynch mob."
Second, Stallman didn't express his views in private conversation, but rather in a forum where those views would have made it very hard for colleagues to continue working with him. If I'm X and you tell me or to Y in private conversation, "X is an idiot" or something of the sort, then that's one thing. If you say so in a forum where others can read it, then you're showing public disrespect towards colleagues, which is a fireable offense.
Here's what he could have said instead: "Have we seen evidence that Minsky himself engaged in illegal activity?" That's it. It would have expressed his point just as well, and would not have shown disrespect toward colleagues.
You are giving the mob far too much credit. It is just the fall of the dice that made them come after Stallman for what he said this time and not another. Had he said "Have we seen evidence that Minsky himself engaged in illegal activity?" it would still have been a crapshoot. The quotes are so amazingly out of context that if they were in the same mood, Vice and friends would still have quoted this as "Stallman says rape not bad".
Media are trash. Cancel culture steamrolls everything, there is no way to avoid being their target other than complete submission. You can word what you say as carefully as you like, but if they perceive that you're a good target, it won't matter one bit.
It's not about what is said, this is simply a war.
Anyone who would talk about a mob is sure to place me among the pitchfork bearers, so I'm not surprised you'd think I'm giving us too much credit. Speaking for myself, I had nothing but positive feelings towards Stallman until today, and even today I gave him the benefit of the doubt until reading his actual emails. Even then I don't hate him; I just think he acted in a way that would be considered a justified cause for dismissal by many reasonable employers. I am also saddened to see that he appeals to science while having learned nothing about a subject he seems to speak so confidently about, while ignoring decades of scholarly work by those who've dedicated their lives to seriously studying the issue. I'm surprised to learn he's like that.
But I agree it's a war. It's a war that's been waged for centuries and even millennia between the hegemony and the margins, and it's a war we'll win, because we always have (well, it's complicated, but if you want to speak in those terms, that's fine by me).
As a European I find it difficult to follow this thread.
> about a mob is sure to place me among the pitchfork bearers
Who is the we and the them?
Since it was the “alt-right” Cernovich who took down Epstein and the “alt-right” who has been making noise about him for the better part of a decade I’m guessing you are “alt-right”? But what faction does that make doubleunplussed?
In my center-left country (by European standards - so “far-left” by American standards) a normal worker couldn’t be fired for making the comments Stallman made but a spokesman of the organisation probably could be?
> between the hegemony and the margins, and it's a war we'll win
Which side do you support? From an outsiders perspective it seems like Richard Stallman is in the margin of the margins?
I don't know who Cernovich is, but in every country a leading figure who makes such statements after decades of workplace problems with women (as it turns out) would be fired.
Just as important as freedom of speech is freedom of association. If your speech is seen as extremely odious, other people have the right to cut ties with you. And if you're in a prominent officer position, the organization as a whole has a right to disassociate itself from you because of those views.
So is Stallman's speech in question here odious? At first glance, not really. But when you put it in context:
The entire brouhaha starts with a sexual predator whose actions are known to but ignored by associates because money (or equivalently, power). Stallman is defending an associate of his who is tainted by association with Epstein. In the kinder light, this defense is essentially pedantry (just rape, not sexual assault). In the harsher light, this defense is "there's nothing inherently wrong with the entire situation here."
In this situation, I think the harsher light is closer to RMS's intent. He has made statements in the past saying that he believes there is nothing inherently wrong with having sex with children (although he has now walked back those statements). In addition, he appears to have acquired a reputation as a sexual harasser among women at MIT over the past few decades.
With that context, it does look like Stallman shares a lot of attributes with "prominent people whose sexual harassment has been ignored because they're powerful people, and who is not sorry about it." And pushing him out of leadership positions because of those views is acceptable consequences in my opinion. More so because it appears to me that he doesn't appreciate how power differential may affect the ability of people to give consent, he is in a position of power, and he appears to desire consent that may be unwilling.
Completely agree with you and it makes me depressed that we are living on an age that we are giving up the imperfectness of humans in exchange for fake puritanism on a standard that cannot be achieved by anyone.
I bet everyone here has one opinion that can definitely and very quickly destroy their lives. Let people be wrong, let them speak, let them think ... We can then convince and converge into a common good. Cancelling the guy that gave his life for the cause is appalling and is showing how evil social media is.
... MIT fired him not Facebook - you are not required to have perfect opinions that everyone agrees with to survive in this world, you are just required to voice them appropriately and at the correct times, which Stallman did not. Stop pretending that Free Speech is something that applies to anything other than citizens having protection from governments
The problem is the witch hunting. Invariably the wrongthink gets "leaked" to the bottom-dweller clickbait outfits like Vice or Slate who then feed it into the court of public opinion. I agree that there are a great number of things I shouldn't say at work, but that also doesn't mean I'm okay with the threat of being very publicly outed if I do. To me it's very close to the "well if you have nothing to hide" argument.
So what is the difference between this and the way Eich was treated for his donation to Prop 8?
I'm not saying I agree with Eich - far from it. Seeing as an awful lot of people on this very thread were outraged by his behaviour, it strikes me as being contrary to be more understanding towards RMS for what is arguably far more heinous simply because they admire him more. Both Gates and Jobs are/were relentlessly and repeatedly pilloried for their "immoral" approach to business and freedom, but to question what constitutes rape or a suggestion that paedophilia is harmless is forgiven readily, because the individual "likes" the perpetrator is abhorrent.
> Seeing as an awful lot of people on this very thread were outraged by [Eich's] behaviour
I can't speak for everyone, but while I strongly disagree with his (implicit) views on gay marriage (I even protested against Prop 8 leading up to it passing, though I unfortunately wasn't quite old enough to vote against it at the time), I also was - and still am - pretty harshly critical of him being pressured to resign from the organization he co-founded solely because of his political leanings. He was the right leader for Mozilla, despite his politics; while it's possible that maybe he was some raging egotist bringing down Mozilla and running counter to its mission, I've yet to see a whole lot of evidence for that.
Meanwhile, Stallman is well-documented to be abrasive, uncooperative, and egotistical even to the people who supported him, and while this specific incident was rather benign, I can understand it as a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. His dogmatic views - while sometimes absolutely spot-on - were also often at the detriment of the free software movement (e.g. the hard stance against OpenBSD's "blobs", and the hard-line stances against non-FOSS programs on FOSS operating systems despite multiple GNU subprojects releasing supported builds for Windows).
Stallman, in other words, was to the FSF as Ballmer was to Microsoft in the sense of being both passionate about their organizations and also being the reasons why their organizations were hemorrhaging influence. Ballmer's departure allowed Microsoft to regain its footing, shake off some of its more toxic dogmas, and become actually decent(-ish; shoving ads down the throats of paying Windows users is pretty scummy, but other parts of Microsoft have actually started to be better members of the broader tech ecosystem). Hopefully Stallman's departure will have a similar effect for the FSF.
Source or STFU? When did he say "paedophilia is harmless"? You can't even have a conversation about paedophilia in reference to a 17 year old without seriously going off topic.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
That's a sickening viewpoint. It's from ten years ago, so I hope his views have changed since then. I'll still defend his right to say that, as long as it's outside the venue of his work. And if a preponderance of evidence were to support him, I'd have to accept that view, as much as I disagree with it. I strongly think he's wrong though and the evidence is against him.
I bet some people at MIT felt that view was sickening as well, and don't want their institution to be associated with that view. And actively want to show their community that they oppose it. I wonder how they could do that effectively...? Oh wait, fire the guy who said it! Brilliant.
Yeah, if he has a history of saying things like that, it's a much more understandable reaction.
However, as a university it still seems like dangerous territory. I think communists are just as sickening, in light of the horrors of the twentieth century. Should I fire them if I'm making those decisions at MIT. Like if a professor said the gulags are a worthwhile evil on the road to socialist utopia? Is it really necessary to end a person's career when you disagree with them on matters unrelated to their work?
This comes down to your allowance and interpretation on self-determination. There are consequences for every action - sometimes positive, sometimes negative. MIT made a calculation and rolled the dice. Most people are pleased, but it just as easily could have gone the other way. Every organization and individual has this right - you're essentially asking if its okay to make this choice if the outcome is negative - yes it is. Thats up to the individual to decide. Stallman made his choice and so did MIT
Here is my conspiracy theory. It is completely hypothetical and unsourced and I really hope it is untrue, but any scenario should be considered.
Brendan Eich is a shill controlled by Google and US goverment agencies. The social media mob attack on him was actually a planned marketing campaign with aim to create an image of an independent, anti-establishment and alternative leader.
His actual goal is to create a "controlled opposition" for Google Chrome and a replacement for Tor Browser. Brave project is needed by Google in order to avoid antitrust charges from the EU when Chrome reaches ~90% market share. It will be still selling user data to Google and it will contain TOR backdoors known only to the US agencies (which will be easier to hide in proprietary browser).
Oh please. We use torproxy unmodified from upstream so the risk is fingerprinting — which is why we warn people looking for Tor-level network privacy on fear of life and limb to use Tor directly. Tor private windows in Brave are for users who should not have to find a trustworthy VPN to cope with untrusted wifi hotspots and the like.
The “selling user data” line betrays ignorance of how data is valued. Google doesn’t sell bulk data to advertisers, it gives API access to ad exchange operations that leak data but not the whole user profile, especially not the valuable correlations, brand loyalties, and shopping searches that run for weeks in case of cars or other major purchases.
Brave builds client only alternatives for anonymous donations and private ads that pay the user 70% of gross. We are making this verifiable on chain in the next stage of our BAT roadmap. If we defected and stole money or data, we would thus be caught and roasted into the ground by our lead users. This is by design.
Last thing: I am hardly an anti establishment leader. I am too busy running a startup, trying to get revenue to cross over based on flat and small/standard fees that leave the big fee to the user.
If you want to find controlled opposition, ask to see the terms of Google’s search deals with other browsers, especially the ones that have been slow and weak on tracking protection that is on by default. A Microsoft contact last year said he suspected those terms include proscription of tracking protection that is on by default, or at least that impairs Google search ads confirmation.
I didn't mean what Brave does now, I meant what it could do after the competition is marginalized or eliminated.
I'm sorry if this sounded like a disrespectful accusation. It was just my attempt to rationalize and make sense of the apparently irrational things that happened around your person. When identity politics and large capital are involved, I'm always suspecting machiavellian and cynical motives.
I wish you prove me wrong and Brave will become a real competitor for Chrome with strong focus on user privacy and security.
We are so far from cornering the market or even taking Chrome’s share that this seems like misdirection. Anyway, of course a monopoly or big enough company can go wrong, but Brave is built on ideas from https://brendaneich.com/2014/01/trust-but-verify/ and if future Brave ever went bad, I’d join many others in taking it down. It helps greatly, beyond the properties discussed in that blog post, that we don’t track, silo, or process any user data in the clear. Privacy by default must use client processing more, along with advanced cryptography, to blind and weaken the natural path dependent advantages of servers.
It's not a company. It's a university, for God sake. If no free speech there anymore, then where? In the kitchen, like in the USSR?
Now if he was a pedophile, he should be in jail. But he is not, he is exersizing free speech, no matter how disgusting it is, he is entitled to it. Should Nabokov have been made unemployable too for writing Lolita?
You are free to say what you like, but the rest of us are free to take actions in response to that so long as those actions don't violate your constitutional rights.
There's no constitutional right to a job or a board membership.
Consequences aren't out of line. Any person in any private company saying same stuff would be fired. Period. It is totally inappropriate and out of context.
> there are certain discussions you just cannot have
The way I look at this is through responsibility. It's like what we learned in Spiderman, "With great power, comes great responsibility."
So it's not that Stallman can't have this conversation anywhere. It's that when he has it so publicly, it makes people question whether he is wielding his power well.
Sometimes responsibility means not saying anything at all. Presumably, Stallman is at MIT for computer science and free software. Why is he speaking off topic to MIT students and alum? Presumably he could develop non-MIT relationships and have whatever crazy conversations he wanted.
More often, I think the responsibility is just to do a lot more work. If you're famous and you speak off the cuff on topics that you haven't researched, then your comments get a reach that's undeserved. It's a misapplication of your fame.
I thought that about PGs most recent luggage comments. This is something that had an answer that he could look up and share with people. Or if that's too hard, he could have gotten a thorough answer privately. Seeing him be so willfully and publicly ignorant made me question whether he deserved the power that comes with fame. Laziness like that is diminishing and eventually it gets to the point where people are so diminished that they should lose their jobs and/or positions of authority.
A point that I'm not seeing raised enough is that Stallman's current job is nowadays almost purely evangelisation and PR. He is a public figure.
In that context, fired is more than fair. His image being linked with pedophilia (on top of the other issues he has) makes him a really bad choice for the public face of a movement/foundation.
If he was, say, a lead engineer whose work was not tied to his image, we could have an argument - but that's quite clearly not the case.
The use of the word attack implies force. Clearly no one has been struck physically and there is no force involved. So the idea that free speech is somehow under attack must be misguided.
Except it's not just about "free speech", it's about protecting the organisation's integrity which was already shot because of Epstein. Context matters, and in this case MIT couldn't afford to just let him off with a warning after already being hit for taking money from a sex trafficker. If RMS had thought about the big picture, he would have known better than to engage on the topic to begin with, especially in that forum.
The FSF is even worse because he's supposed to be in a position of leadership there and represents the organisation. And they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to decide whether to support some controversial statement about age of consent laws just because one of their leaders decided to stick up for one of his friends. It's just not worth it.
> How is it we value free speech, but there are certain discussions you just cannot have, even in a rational and measured way, without risking making yourself completely unemployable. You should be able to have a questionable viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your career.
Just ask James Damore and his memo on a certain ideological echo chamber. I read his document, and found his view point to be sadly misinformed; yet his right to speech wasn't protected. He was fired.
That was the moment I realized free speech isn't really a thing any more if it touched certain topics. Yes constitutionally we still do, but we can easily lose everything that matters to us even if we win the court battle.
Regarding the United States at least, there are topics that we, as a country, have decided are not up for debate in the workplace. That's a feature not a bug; we've had enough decades of, for example, observation of how covert and overt racism harms people it is directed against that we've made it the sort of thing that companies can be directly liable for if they allow it in their space.
There's a hundred years of history explaining why the balance point between freedom of speech and freedom from fear has been calibrated thusly.
The consequences here are not out of line, because this wasn't the first time that RMS made his views on statutory rape (he doesn't see the harm in it) clear.
The man has no understanding of the concept of consent, and why a child is unable to grant it. He can have whatever opinions he wants, but as a spokesperson for the FSF, he sure as shit shouldn't be broadcasting that one.
This isn't some rando who works for an organization being punished for airing their opinion. This is someone whose job is public speaking, speaking in a way that actively harms any organization he is associated with.
I generally don't see the hacker community jump to the defense of someone who has so colossally mucked up at his one job, but here we are, turning ourselves in knots in the defense of the right of a public speaker to remain employed when his speech is actively harming his employer.
It should also be noted, without the faintest shred of irony that the man consented to resign. I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal out of it...
>RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.
Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything. Playing the Advocatus Diaboli, why should i view this outcry as anything different then the Saudis stance on sex before marriage? Fundamentalist puritans being opposed to self determination shaming others into conformism? Its not like the US where you cant drink until you are 21, but get to join the army with 18, where sex ed is often reduced to abstinence only, where the government does its best to infringe into womens right to get abortions, where you can be prosecuted for sexting as a minor and lets not forgett where sex workers are almost across the country criminalized has any moral high ground on the topic what so ever.
But thats besides the point. First the MIT donation and now this stuff over 3 corners. How about we focus on what actually is the problem here? How many people from both parties had connections to not a brothel owner but someone involved in human trafficking and coercing minors into sexwork? How he got away with this this despite being brought infront of a judge for it? Or why they were on that island in the first place and why Eppstein apparently invited so many people. The word compromat comes to mind. But these politicians arent so easy targets, people like Stallman or the guy at MIT are. The mob wants blood and it doesnt seem to matter whos. I would recommend checking your moral compass if you are at threat of being sued for slander after the discussion here.
There isn't a situation where a 74 year old has sexual contact with a 17 year old on a billionaire's private island in which everyone is willing and happy with what is happening.
It is extremely doubtful that a young woman would find herself in that situation in any other way than a long path of abuse and desperation.
Taking advantage of that young woman is immoral.
That isn't some puritanical, anti-sex philosophy that hates fun.
That is empathy to the all too common situation of young vulnerable women being used for pleasure.
I dont necessarily disagree with your assessment, however i am sure someone could also tell you how sex before marriage has an absolutely horrible impact on the people involved or how your assessment would also be true for prostitution in general. You likely heard "the speech" before when it comes to abortions.
In the end its weighing off protecting people from a presumed risk against infringing on their self determination. The question is clear cut when it comes to kids as we as a society accepted that their self determination isnt that great and infringing on it is fine most of the time. They have to brush their teeth, they dont get to drink alcohol and they cant work in a brothel.
The question here is does the same rule for a 8 year old apply for a 17 year old. Most European societies see a huge difference when it comes to age and that the ways in which the self determination of a 17 year old can be restricted are a lot more limited. In the end infringing on someones self determination is just too grave of a violation to do it unless its absolutely necessary.
What is instead illegal is not the action of the person presumed to be needing protection but make sure that exploiting that person is illegal. The Switzerland example still had it illegal to encourage or coerce girls to work in a brothel, which in practice means there was no one willing to risk running such a brothel.
And again, this discussion misses the point. Its not why did Eppstein run a brothel on an island but how come he was able to engage in sex trafficking, coercing of minors and all of that under the nose of quite a lot of politicians.
You think there doesn't exist a single mentally healthy middle-class 17 year old girl who would have sex with an elderly man for a large sum of money? That only the poor disadvantaged girls solicit sugar daddies?
This idea is counter-intuitive to me. When I was 17 my religious convictions prevented me from having sex with anyone, but I imagine that without those beliefs I would have at least put _some_ dollar figure on the price for me having sex with a 74 year old woman, and I certainly didn't have any history of abuse or desperation.
The law has been set to prevent children from being taken advantage of by adults. Being capable of making the decision and being able to make the decision properly are two different things - the law is there to protect you even when you don't think you need it. At 17 I didn't think a lot of things were good for me. It would have been easy for someone to trick me into doing something I shouldn't - that benefits them way more than it does me. What you are suggesting is that we should be okay with this. The law, precedent, and public opinion all disagree with you.
> What you are suggesting is that we should be okay with this.
Anyone who can read my comment above can see clearly that you are putting words in my mouth.
> The law, precedent, and public opinion all disagree with you.
Except for all the places where law, precedent, and public opinion agree with an age of consent of 17?
The whole point is that there is not one single hard and fast rule that defines the boundaries of ethics in prostitution. So many of the comments here (including yours) portray a complicated situation as clearly black and white. Of course it doesn't help that in this particular case many folks are talking past each other because we're all intermingling various interrelated topics:
* Stallman's remarks and forced resignation
* The age of consent
* The specific case of Epstein's island
* Prostitution
I suspect that if we were to explicitly comment specifically on one point or the other that we'd all find we agree much more that we appear to.
Anytime sex with children comes up there are dozens of HN accounts who'll post mind-boggling shit. "But is abuse really that harmful?", "consensual paedophilia isn't so bad", "prostitution is the same as a burger flipping job but better paid", "well, okay, this child was kidnapped, drugged, and raped and then sold via small ads for further rape, and everyone involved knew that, but do we really want to stop those ads? Isn't that the start of a slippery slope?".
In Berlusconi's ~75yo case he was acquitted of having sex with a 17yo because the "fact is not a crime". Then he was accused of bribing witnesses 10 million €, so I guess we have to wait and see.
Definitely morally dubious, especially in his case. It's not clear if the girl did it for money, or was more or less nudged into this by her life circumstances.
"There isn't a situation where a 74 year old has sexual contact with a 17 year old on a billionaire's private island in which everyone is willing and happy with what is happening."
How about, if the old person would be mick jagger? I could imagine, he still has his charms to some.
Also I have seen young attractive women aproaching old yoga gurus for example ..
But yeah, the old guy wasn't mick jagger, nor a yoga master and at best he did assume the girl was a 18+ old prostitue doing it willingly for money and power.
If you offered enough money I am sure a fair number of 17 year old would be happy to accept. I have seen girls auctioning off their virginity after all.
It is striking to see you say it, given the decades of immense cultural pressure to convince young Americans that of course you should be willing and happy to seek out sex with old billionaires -- it's fulfilling!
It's so hard to imagine the origins of the Playboy-era now. But it was dominant among the educated classes through the 80s or 90s. The change is mostly for the better. I suppose the pendulum will swing again some day, but likely not in my lifetime.
>As long of course as no one is coerced into anything
In what insane hypothetical does a 17 year old girl have consensual sex with a 74 year old man on a billionaire's island? At best it's prostitution, c'mon.
Yes and prostitution is a normal job like any other in my jurisdiction. Coercion isnt part of that. They pay taxes and get to sue if a client doesnt pay. I find the criminalization of sex workers as it is happening in the US extremely barbaric.
Yep, just a normal, level headed 17 year old girl looking to make a quick buck by sleeping with old, rich men. What 17 year old wouldn't love such a life?
I'm with you on prostitution in general, but Epstein was a sleazebag and we know exactly what sort of girls he was grooming. There is no moral avenue that leads to sex with a 17 year old prostitute.
Again, i am not disagreeing. I am making the argument that you can make an argument like Stallman did without deserving mob justice. Stallman broke with the strict morality code of his society and nothing more. That i might have the same opinion as the mob doesnt mean we should go around ignoring free speech and attacking anyone commiting the heresy of playing Advocatus Diaboli. Its not free speech if you only allow people saying what you like.
I am also not talking about justifications for Epstein, i mentioned how unrelated Stallman is to the real problem here namely Epstein and his visitors.
Reading through the comments I'm honestly a bit torn on the outcome for Stallman. Like most here, I think we are too quick to exile people for off color remarks. On the other hand, this isn't the first time Stallman has done something embarrassing, and given his relationship to this guy he should have been smart enough to just keep quiet. He's not just some programmer; he's a representative of MIT and the FSF. I understand why they want to disassociate themselves from him.
Its not about how smart he should have been but if it is ever acceptable to oust someone for infringing on a societies moral compass instead of only for harming or trying to harm anyone. Because historically our shared compass has been shit and the source of quite a bit evil. Racism, sexism and slavery where at some point in time socially accepted and breaching that shared moral compass had dire consequences. Think honorkillings for sex before marriage, pinning white feathers on men to pressure them to die in the trenches of ww1, slutshaming, beeing shunned from society for being gay, having to fulfill your marital duties or face being raped and beaten, mobs forming for people using the wrong colored bathroom or having prostitutes persecuted and treated like second class citizens. Thinking back to since when your version of our shared moral compass no longer involved such deeply reprehensible parts the answer is often rather problematic. Its likely since you reached your 20 or so, since its the version of your societies compass you came up with. Now what are the chances that i just seemed to be arriving once mob justice became a good idea because we finally got the moral compass right?
I for myself think i will run less of a risk of being a staunch supporter of ethnic cleansings without knowing it if I instead stick to the rule that as long as you arent hurting anyone else, you are good to go. And no, hurt feelings from arguments dont count, or we rob our self of ever evolving our compass further. Without free speech and open discussions we are cementing the status quo. So if he wants, Stallman can be as socially incompetent and offensive as he wants. He has to live with being seen as a weirdo, but i dont think he has a problem with that.
But then again, I know that I dont know much on the topic.
Let's not be completely idiotic and remember who we were at 17. Idiotic and acting before thinking, sure, but far from totally clueless.
There's something beyond slavery and prostitution, there's willing exploitation of the old guy for money, beyond the sexual service. If it was a young stud with an old lady, you'd think twice before saying the old lady is a dirty pervert, right :D
But that's never been the point: the point is you and me can debate to no end about bullshit like that with half information and no legal culture, but Stallman, as a member of faculty, has 0 legitimacy doing it on faculty mail.
There is when children are forced into it due to circumstance, coersion, or force. This subject at hand has nothing to do with an adult making a conscious choice.
They're only considered children in some backwards places. Plus as far as I understand 17 is old enough to enlist in the army in the US? Please tell me how you think it's totally ok to send "children" off to war but prostitution now that's a line you won't cross!
More to the point of this thread: since I'm arguing that there's no effective difference between a 17yo and an 18yo prostitute (much like Stallman), should my professional life be ruined as well?
17 with parental consent, but don't be dense; it's the conditions under which these girls are being passed around that is so abhorrent to most people. Stallman should have just kept his mouth shut on this one, and I don't believe HN would maintaine this position if it were e.g. Donald Trump in the middle of this instead of RMS.
This was just the straw that broke the camel's back. RMS has done a lot of great things, but he's also done a lot of bone headed things and some of his colleagues understandably don't want to be associated with him anymore.
Honestly, when Stallman visited my university, because I knew the people that were involved with the organization, I got to know how a massive asshole he is, plus his conduct during the panel he was part of was deplorable. Also the vast majority of the time I saw something written by him made me strongly dislike him. I do recognize how his extremist views have pushed the open source movement into a good direction, though that is pretty much the only positive thing I can say about him.
Still my argument is that he should not be excised from society from having what the hivemind decided was the wrong kind of opinion. It's ok to discuss things and I'd even argue that all discussions should be had.
I just don't want to live in a place where expressing my opinion on some controversial issue, entirely lawfully, might have me excluded from society.
> I just don't want to live in a place where expressing my opinion on some controversial issue, entirely lawfully, might have me excluded from society.
I don't either, but that doesn't mean we need to have an absolutist position on speech. I don't view defending pedophilia or making apologies for the rape of a sex trafficking victim to be merely "controversial."
A few comments up I admitted that I'm torn on how he was ousted as well because I, like you, am not a fan of outrage culture and exiling people who make a remark someone else may find offensive.
That said, I don't think it's reasonable to have this discussion about RMS in a bubble, pretending as if he's never done anything else to contribute to what happened.
It's still legal in large parts of Europe. What I don't get is the US... where the age of consent is I think 16, but everyone's making a huge fuss about the fact that someone was 17.
Yes, it was rape and trafficking - that's terrible enough as it is, no need to make it look worse than it is.
This is essentially diluting the most terrible crime of abusing young children.
The age of consent and the vagaries of how consent can be given varies between states. Some states set the age at 18, and can charge minors under the limit for statutory rape, some states have the age at 16 and allow marriage to children as young as 14 with parental permission...
I'll go ahead and say the quiet part loud. There is a changing definition of what is a child in the US. People generally under 24 are considered children, and I can recount a few people facing critique over dating people in their early twenties (<25) from dating men (mostly men) who are older. I've read an article that questions whether 16 year olds can be sexually active at all, that is, with teens their own age (other 16 yr olds), not with older people so nothing like pedophilia or an age difference at all. Another example is a thread I read on reddit questioning whether it was okay for a 17 year old musician making music with sexually explicit lyrics, presumably concerning sexual relations with others their own age.
A lot of the Epstein drama seems to be driven by two pieces, political connections to Trump and Clinton (so it touches "both" sides if you will) and the reaction of this changing definition of childhood to the exploitation of these teens at the hand of Epstein and the perspectives of people either older or from countries with different ideas of the propriety of the sexuality of teenagers. The changing range of who is a child is why what rms said so digusting, because it is considered in kind with say, rape of a toddler or a preteen in the popular mind as the social definitions are shifting.
The problem of course is this is very US centric, and there are of course people just living in different cultures and attitudes elsewhere. I have friends abroad were actually confused about the Epstein drama when they first read about it because to them, it was salacious but not as creepy as Americans think it is.
That's quite strange because I was under the impression that the US has a problem with teen pregnancies and the age at which sexual encounters first take place is going down.
I assume that's the whole point of the law in many US states and countries - it recognizes the biological reality that teens will have sex.
I've also seen that some EU countries allow teens to sext with each-other (boyfriend/girlfriend exception) without having them fall afoul of the otherwise clear laws against child pornography. This is unlike the US and also seems sensible.
The teen birth rate has been dropping, and things usually attributed to youthful indiscretion like drugs and alcohol just aren't as popular anymore. The entire Hollywood set of tropes popular in 00's teen movies aren't really true anymore.
My point is that social mores in the US are moving faster than current laws. I'm also not really sure whether teenage sexuality is a hard biological reality as, well, social pressures have an ability to change minds. Years ago, 13 year olds were expected to take up work on the farm. Today, 13 year olds are children most definitely. Perhaps there are limits to how much social conditions can condition individuals but at the very least, the whole changing definitions of childhood (or what was called "adolescence" for teens being pushed into the early 20's) is happening and whether it's conditioning or not.
California != the United States, which I assume was the GP's point (and also one of Stallman's points): the age of consent varies between jurisdictions even within the United States, let alone outside of it, so trying to declare "sex with someone under the legal age" as inherently immoral would require clarifying which legal age in order for that declaration to be meaningful.
That is: it's hard to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not someone is old enough to give informed consent if there's no actually consistent definition of what "old enough" actually means.
I personally consider 20 to be that age (with some lenience for situations where both parties were/are underage at the start of the intimate relationship), but that's based more on the typical "half plus 7" rule than anything particularly concrete.
So laws don’t matter as long as in some other jurisdictions or time it’s not illegal?
You are free to disagree with the law as it’s written. You are even free to break the laws if you disagree strongly enough. But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.
Stallman is facing consequences that are not part of the law. This citation of different legal standards provides evidence that extra-legal action was inappropriate.
The title of this post and thread is "Richard M. Stallman resigns", which would mean that this particular discussion is quite literally about the consequences to Stallman (and if they're not, then they're probably off-topic).
>But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.
No one does. its not about not prosecuting anyone for what happened on that Island. Its about Stallmans response to the allegations against someone else. Did you respond to the wrong comment by any chance?
I am the parent and its not what i wrote. I would recommend reading it again.
I also dont see where you made the jump to the legal/illegal argument. Since we are talking about Stallmans speech, we are clearly not discussing illegal behavior but free speech. Or is what Stallman said illegal by now?
Good pointer, that was some misleading wording on my part.
OP mentioned after the part that I quoted that
>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it.
I think you could make the argument that what he said wasnt that "inappropriate", but only in the frame of reference of a rather puritanical American society. Hence the reference to a more far out frame of reference in form of Saudi Arabia.
His original quote is
>The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. 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.
That might not make him a great person, but you can make that argument. That the equivalence of assault and prostitution is a rather American one and not universally. And that the distinction in the form of the age of consent of a 17 year old isnt universally either.
Here's a counter. You're ascribing intent to one's writing, and unless you have a special relationship with Mr. Stallman - you don't know anything.
Because of a radical, illiberal mob, Stallman's life's work has been taken from him.
Few years ago I had had a Junior engineer on my team begin telling me how he finds certain speech so intolerable that he feels he has the right to assault someone for saying it. This is the reasoning behind these kinds of mob justices.
So now I see a mob hurting yet another life, not because of real-world conduct, but because of speech. I see real-world destruction wrought because of speech.
What never occurred to this young man was that there exist people who find the suppression of speech to be what is truly intolerable in this world. That this form of group-think is truly destructive, that actions are of consequence, not speech.
Do pray the pendulum never swings in your direction.
As far as I understand, there's plenty of real-world horrible conduct he could have got fired for too, which has gone without consequence.
This isn't a one-time thing where he never did a bad thing in his life and now is suddenly attacked by a mob. He has been an awful person for a long, long time, and now he is suddenly facing actual consequences.
I'm willing to bet if I went through all your tweets, social media, and personal email, I could find SOMETHING that could have gotten you fired if it ever came to public attention. In fact, I'm sure that's true for just about anybody.
RMS is an "awful person"? I would say that, he's a hero to a lot of people, including me. He might be "social unskilled", but an AWFUL person? I would say that is untrue in any common sense way.
Yes, actively awful. Hostile-working-environment awful. Women cultivating plants in their offices because they know he hates plants and won't creep on them awful.
When you have a hostile creep in the workplace the women in that workplace will have techniques they use to avoid the creep. This is because men do not believe those women when they say "this guy is a creep" and so no action gets taken against the creep. Or men do believe those women, but they decide not to do anything anyway.
Eventually the body of evidence is so huge people can't avoid taking action any longer.
We see this with Crosby, we see it with Epstein, we see it with Weinstein. Those people were monsters yet it took years for anything to happen.
RMS is clearly nothing at all like those men, but the denial of his abusive behaviours is the same.
Confirmation bias. If the "multiple women" spans decades, you're probably actively looking for the hits and not looking at the misses. He's socially awkward so probably a lot of the "hits" are probably misinterpreting him.
There are other comments talking about how he has a phobia to plants so women grow them in their offices or wear clothing with plant imagery. This may or may not be true.
I prefer to think that Stallman finds this utterly hilarious and encourages the behavior.
This sounds exaggerated to me. He's socially awkward so it's more likely women are taking his actions the wrong way. Richard Stallman holds ethics in high regard.
How about you just trust the word of women who have actually had to deal with him in person rather than try to imagine what you think he SHOULD be like?
Women have been complaining. For a long time. He is a big problem. He has been a big problem for a long time.
They brought no proof, so no. Show something on a cell phone video or whatever. And make it obvious, not something that can be interpreted in other ways. Then I'll believe it. But until that day comes, the burden of proof lies with the woman.
>Few years ago I had had a Junior engineer on my team begin telling me how he finds certain speech so intolerable that he feels he has the right to assault someone for saying it.
Most people feel this way. Not with nearly as much speech as your junior did, but there are certain forms of speech we are so against we have written exceptions into law and the Supreme Court even used concepts such as obscenity to empower these laws to ignore even the First Amendment.
Is it really surprising a generation or two later people are now seeking to have even more speech fall under such bans?
Divining intent isn’t the right threshold to judge speech. If it were then I can say whatever I want in whatever environment, because how would you prove my intent?
I yell fire in a crowded theatre, that’s ok it wasn’t my intent to cause panic.
Only because your words caused actionable harm. If you didn't intend to cause harm and there were no harmful consequences should you still be punished?
What Stallman did isn't illegal. So some legal standard of likelyhood of physical harm need not apply. But I dispute your claim that rape apologia by an authority figure is unlikely to cause harm.
It was the grandparent's example, not mine. Also, I dispute your characterization as "rape apologia". It's a fairly ironic description given RMS's original issue was mischaracterization of the issue in the media.
> I yell fire in a crowded theatre, that’s ok it wasn’t my intent to cause panic.
The "fire in a crowded theater" analogy was coined by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v. United States.[1] Holmes used that analogy to send a Schenck to prison for protesting the draft in WWI.
The idea that speech is not "real-world conduct" is, in my considered opinion, not just wrong, but actively corrosive to the fabric of our civilization. Ideas are powerful, speeches can incite revolutions, send millions to their deaths, or be used to fight tyranny and oppression.
Should we highly value the idea of free speech? I believe we should. But we should also recognize that there's no such thing as "just speech". What we say matters, particularly if, like Dr. Stallman in this case, we are public figures speaking in what (given the number and types of people involved) is a semi-public forum.
There are two well know aphorisms: "the pen is mightier than the sword" and "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword". But if one recalls the last is derived from a line in the Bible that says in whole: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Sometimes, we should put the pen back in its place, lest we kill or die by it in our hubris.
Intent is irrelevant ... only the impact. One must always be ready to reckon with the impact of their actions and speech, regardless of what their intent was.
And conversely, this is why terms like "homicide" and "manslaughter" exist, because judgements in cases of one person killing another depend on specific circumstances and intent.
It feels like you two are trying to disagree with me, but are only bolstering my argument further. In the context of murder, regardless of what the murderer's intent was, the victim is still dead ... the impact remains unchanged, and the murderer must still reckon with their actions (even if their intent is taken into account in sentencing)
Who says harm hasn't been caused? I've never been to MIT, but there's plenty of stories floating around from alumni who suggest he may have contributed to a hostile environment that has likely made women feel unwelcome (for one example of harm caused).
It’s important to measure harm done and react when it is significant (or hopefully before it reaches that threshold).
Fortunately there are legal thresholds for workplace harassment that are designed to protect people. They aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but it’s one way to differentiate between harm and perceived harm.
No workplace should be a hostile environment and it’s messed up if women feel unwelcome. The challenge is in differentiating from harmful behaviors and behaviors that are interpreted as harmful. I have no idea how to do that and one of the reasons why I think HR is a really hard job.
But there’s lots of scenarios where someone may feel unwelcome that doesn’t result from any ill will or poor action on the part of another. For example, I had an employee who was really hurt because a staff member didn’t prebrief her on meetings she was invited to. She was really upset and it hurt her. She though her coworker was withholding information from her and wanted her to do poorly at work. Eventually I had to confront the other and the other was surprised and had no idea. The other wasn’t withholding info but my staffer was requesting to attend as an optional on the meeting at the last minute and the other agreed but didn’t spend any time describing the meeting. The other assumed my staffer would read the agenda and material and review the participants. The resolution was my staffer understanding no ill will.
There’s many situations where I get upset about something that is me interpreting things and not a flaw in others that should be changed. Hostile work environments need to have the actual problems addressed and the individual perceived problems resolved efficiently, I think.
Dude, Stallman has been spitting his bullshit to the world and we had no way to stop the vomit, coming out of universities. How many young people have wasted their youth following his ideas, reading his stuff, until they finally realized it was all shit.
So, yeah, now it's catching up to him, for something nobody in his right mind every does in a corporate environment: giving his opinion on the moral definition of rape. Fucking come on man, how can you defend this moron, who does that ?
You see yourself tomorrow, in charge of the education of students, writing around to your colleagues about what is or is not a rape, for all to record and copy paste to newspapers ? At least do it on skype and add a smiley...
You're justifying the actions a lynch mob. Why does anyone need to provide a counter point? The onus is on you to explain why you think a mob taking justice into their own hands is okay. The only justification I can find is that he said something inappropriate. Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
Completely missing the point of the outrage.
It's the chilling effect of people silencing views they don't like that really freaks people out, pisses them off and makes them mad. The actual views in play are irrelevant - the issue is that some person was uncomfortable at something some other person said, so they silenced the man's ability to say it. Not just that, they took away his vitality and ability to support himself. Anyone with any kind of functional critical reasoning facilities can instantly understand why this is scary.
It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions. If you think the wrong way, the progressive mob will make you seem unemployable. Because you had the audacity to say something "inappropriate," (oh also the mob determines what's appropriate and inappropriate on the fly).
No I'm not. I also don't think the outcome had anything to do with the mob. There were plenty of people even before the mob knew anything, who took strong exception to what RMS was saying.
> Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
I'm not. MIT decided what was appropriate for their organization and the moral behavior of its employee and associate.
I am making what I think is a pretty universal moral statement in that old men taking advantage of young women for sexual pleasure is very wrong.
> It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions.
These aren't just "non-mainstream opinions" he was defending actions which most western societies consider rape. This isn't some slippery slope where people can't say anything nonconformist, this is a situation where people don't want to be associated with you when you publicly defend taking advantage of vulnerable, abused young women.
RMS was pointing out inaccuracies in how a deceased colleague who was being accused of a heinous crime might simply have slept with a prostitute, if at all (which turns out probably wasn't the case).
> This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired.
This is a man who said something mildly inappropriate in a forum, as is his wont.
> He deserved it.
A completely appropriate and reasonable verdict, no doubt. Doubts are for unreasonable people, of which one you are not.
2. RMS: "you shouldn't call it assault - might give people the wrong idea"
3. "It would have been literally rape in the relevant territory, 'assault' is a fine word for it"
4. RMS: "ok, even if it's legally rape, it shouldn't morally be considered rape, so don't call it assault if it was 'just' statutory rape."
What inaccuracies did he point out? I see that he expressed his opinion that 'assault' is too strong a word for some cases of rape, but what inaccuracy was there in the original statement regarding the allegations about minsky?
Do you mind avoiding paraphrasing? It seems a lot of the confusion is stemming from the editorializing / paraphrasing done by the media outlets and throughout the ensuing discussions so it may be best to litigate the direct quotations to keep the discussion as fact based as possible
>When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL community. Regardless of intent,
this thread reads as "grasping at straws to defend our friends" around potential involvement with Epstein, and that isn't a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL
affiliation.
What do you think as an administrator if you see a comment like that about one of your prominent employees?
Maybe Stallman should focus less on rape and sex, and more on writing software. We're still waiting for HURD...
Seriously, what is it with all those people discussing in corporate and public function their stupid opinion of the moral definition of rape. Let justice speak, and you, speak privately. For someone lauded as a genius of some sort, he could have maybe understood what you can say where.
It's the accused that is the problem with this. He isn't defending the proven actions of a pervert, he is defending the memory of a dead friend, suggesting that his friend was incapable of the crime of which he is accused. If defending an accused friend is now itself punishable by excision from society, then the effect of an accusation alone becomes immediate isolation. The presumption of innocence, not only in court, but in public discourse, is a vital component of a genuinely free society. I will not support people who reject it.
There is absolutely no obligation to presume innocence in our personal opinions. We are all freely permitted to form our own opinions based on the facts of the situation.
There are good reasons that our legal systems favor the accused -- ones that I _fully_ support -- but it is an unreasonably high epistemic standard for us to operate under in our daily lives.
If I don't want to associate with someone because they're an asshole, I'm under no obligation to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt. My freedom of association is more fundamental.
That he was defending his dead friend isn't the issue.
He was defending statutory rape and taking advantage of vulnerable young women - it does not matter whether the actual event happened or not. RMS was defending rape in a very public forum and got fired.
RMS stood for a world where we have the right to know and modify the code that runs on our machines. A world where we have the freedom to access ideas and discuss them. He battled for decades to protect the freedom of you and me, and he asks nothing in return. He was such an unfailing bulwark against the forces that would deprive us of our rights that his name is practically synonymous with the free software movement.
He took a position in a discussion you disagree with, so you're OK with him being removed from his organizations and his name dragged through the mud. Your argument stands for a world where people deserve to be stripped of their position because they expressed an opinion you disagree with.
Even if you're completely 100% right, how do 'indefensible opinions' get challenged if they cannot be expressed? How do any of us learn or improve?
Has anyone taken a moment to think, what comes next now that he's gone? I hope for your sake and mine that the accomplishments of the GNU and FSF will be enough to keep us free.
He disagreed with the wording "assault" which he felt was ambiguous. He would almost certainly have been fine with the wording "had sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island". I'm sure a number of other wordings that call into question said girl's consent, the legal status of said girl on said private island with regards to sex, and so on would have been fine as well.
That is what “defending” means: he took objection to what Minsky allegedly did being accurately characterised as assault and a crime.
Plenty of criminals take objection to their crimes being described as crimes, but “men should be allowed to have sex with underaged girls” is a particularly self-serving and gross position for a man in a position of power over young women to take.
> That is what “defending” means: he took objection to what Minsky allegedly did being accurately characterised as assault and a crime.
That "and" is pretty disingenuous here, turning the sentence from accurate to grossly misleading. RMS took objection to the act being characterized as assault. Not as crime. And the truth is, it does matter what crime was committed, not only that a crime was (allegedly, as it turns out). It would matter to you if your deceased friend was accused posthumously that their record is at least kept accurate, if it isn't straight.
Yeah but see, nobody cares. Stallman is not well paid by his students, some of which female, to hold sexual assaut position in his MIT functions. He could, for example, let judges decide what the definition of rape should be, that's what we all pay taxes for after all.
He can hold an opinion about the moral definition of rape, sure, but why express it so widely in a corporate environment, it blows my mind.
The age of consent in a large part of the world (including a large part of the US) is 16. In Europe it goes down to 14, with some protections from abuse over those with power over the teen (e.g. teachers).
Some(?) European countries do legally differentiate between children and teens and that seems reasonable bases on what we know about biological and developmental differences.
I also regrettably used "child sex abuse" inaccurately before when referring to Epstein. This reflects the legal status in the US I believe, but paints the wrong picture of actual children instead of teens being harmed. It pays to be accurate, because discussions around this topic are completely hysterical as it is.
To be fair, I don’t think he said it wasn’t a crime. He simply didn’t think it equated to the same moral depravity as sexual (physical) assault, hence why he thought it should have a different term to describe it.
Not defending it, but characterizing his words correctly in context.
for it to be accurate you have to look into the laws of a given jurisdiction. If you take EU 17 is age of consent in all countries but Vatican and Malta with a significant portion being significantly lower.
> If you take EU 17 is age of consent in all countries
There is no age of consent in France. (However there are aggravating thresholds if there was a crime: under 18 if committed by someone with authority over the victim, under 15 for other cases.)
Come on - if I accuse you of being 74 and having sex with a a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island - then nobody can defend you? Minsky is dead and he cannot defend himself, the girl said she was directed to have sex with him - but she did not say she eventually did it, she did answer a question about where she went to do that and she answered that which would imply that she had sex with him - but it is entirely possible that she meant the place where she was directed to do it, but eventually failed, there is a witness saying that he turned her down. These are the facts from the deposition and it is fair to point them out.
There is another aspect of his emails - he also wrote that she presented herself as willing and that was entirely misquoted as 'she was willing', which was unfair. Stallman's point was that it is a bit misleading to characterise the act as 'assault' if it was she who sought out Minsky and he was not aware of the fact that she was coerced by Epstein. This is a bit insensitive splitting hair - but the misquoting was really mean.
Err... anyone can defend him. The fact that RMS did defend him is prima facie evidence that he was able to defend him.
Now, most people would mount a defense along the lines of "I don't believe Minsky would have sex with trafficked girls". RMS, always with the innovative methods, decided "Maybe it's not so bad to have sex with trafficked underage girls".
But, like it or not, he was clearly capable of making that defense. So I don't know where "can't defend" is coming from.
I am not a native English speaker - should I use 'nobody is allowed to defend' instead? He was punished for defending his friend and the parent post justifies that:
"RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.
There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky.
...
The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch."
As if it was enough to defend someone accused of some crime to be guilty as well. This is clearly absurd - so I am trying to get the author to explain what he really meant.
RMS is not guilty of a crime, I don't think anyone is saying that.
RMS can (could) make his defense, nobody stopped him, sreened or censored the posts, his opinions are legal.
RMS can't (couldn't) make some of the statements he made and keep his prominent positions.
The issue at hand is not that he was defending his deceased friend. Indeed I think it is very possible that the actual situation was that Minsky was there and declined the sexual advances. That is a story which is out there, I'm not here to judge if it's true or not.
It was the way RMS was defending. Those specific statements are things you "can't" do and - qualifying here - keep a prominent public position, especially when you are making them in a prominent forum in that institution.
RMS shouldn't be charged with a crime, but he did make a whole lot of people not want to work with or be associated with him.
OK - the whole flamewar shows that indeed the mailing list was probably not a good way of defending Minsky. It was not effective and it generated a lot of chaos. But then the question is what would be the appropriate way?
> The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch.
Many people, including you, have lost their grasp for the concept of different moral attitudes. The above is just your opinion, not mine. I do not agree with it and find it irritating that you consider your moral judgement an argument that requires to be countered.
>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired
In my opinion, you are conflating inappropriate statements with statements to which you disagree.
The university campus is where minds should go to get challenged by different and somewhat uncomfortable opinions. RMS presents different and uncomfortable opinions in spades. But he does not present them in an inappropriate way. The thread RMS was responding to was explicitly political and opinion based. It was absolutely fair game for his response.
As an example, when I attended university, I took a class (Anthro 2A) where the material presented pedophilia as normal behavior in the context of certain cultural customs. I personally disagree with that research, but I didn't call for the instructor to be fired. Cultural relativism is an important concept that should be thought about even if one disagrees.
But the actual Stallman/MIT kerfluffle is actually not that big a deal IMO.
The bigger deal is the mob acting on deceptive reporting by Vice & DailyBeast. It's one thing to say that Stallman's factual statements on Minsky were inappropriate. It's another to conflate them with statements on Epstein. The vast majority of the outrage is based on the reporting that makes Stallman appear sympathetic to Epstein which is a complete fabrication. It is literally 'fake news'.
this is a very very very dangerous viewpoint that you are expressing, and I very much hope that you are over simplifying. Because if you really think that somebody needs to be fired, for stating a point completely unrelated to their job, then that is a problem that we, as a society, need to address urgently.
Everyone is allowed to believe anything they damn well please. They are even allowed to state it. There should not be a viewpoint holding which makes one unemployable. because as soon as that exists, there is no freedom of speech, only a caricature of it.
freedom of speech is not about saying things that everyone agrees with. It is about saying things everyone disagrees with. and yes, speech comes with consequences. But those should be doled out logically, not by an angry mob forcing an institution's hand.
The common argument that I hear is that free speech does not come free of consequences. Fine. But those should be clear and well defined. Not decided by a mob at any given moment. If you want to clearly state that you will not employ anyone who holds the following views, that is okay with me. But firing somebody because the mob demanded it, is against the very idea of freedom of speech
> Because if you really think that somebody needs to be fired, for stating a point completely unrelated to their job, then that is a problem that we, as a society, need to address urgently.
The issue is not voicing an opinion in private -- it's voicing it on an institutional mailing list in his capacity as a member of that institution.
Like I said: clearly specify which opinions your employees are not allowed to hold, and that is okay. Arbitrarily deciding this AFTER they have already expressed the opinion is terrible.
Deciding post-facto smells of favoritism and can never be proven to be fair. It also creates a chilling effect since nobody ever knows what is and is not ok to say, since at any point in time AFTER the fact you might decide it is not ok.
It definitely makes sense to have some kind of official policy about what kind of speech is acceptable, but I don't think it's possible to enumerate all opinions that are unacceptable in a reasonable way.
I'm almost certain MIT has an employee handbook that reasonably covers situations like this. If anything, it's a demonstration of favoritism that he wasn't fired in the past.
I'm totally unsure how that's relevant -- we're discussing employee handbooks for private institutions. I'm very in favor of freedom of speech at the governmental level.
> I'm totally unsure how that's relevant -- we're discussing employee handbooks for private institutions. I'm very in favor of freedom of speech at the governmental level.
Because if i can lose my job over a statement and a mob reaction, the mob makes me unemployable since they scare other employers, i lose my livelihood, and thus my life. If I have no protection from that (enshrined in a law, like california actually has), in what way is speech free? It becomes more of: "speech only as authorized by the mob-du-jour".
Freedom of association (or more specifically: the freedom to not associate) has limits; for example, freedom of association "doesn't matter" in the context of whether or not it's legal or moral to prohibit someone of a protected class from patronizing a business.
you bring up an interesting point, freedom of association is also important, and it seems like those two are potentially in conflict over speech. I'd love to continue this debate, but HN's increased throttling of replies-to-replies makes it complicated. Can we continue over email? (mine is in my profile)
the instution that is at the heart of a current scandal regarding jeffrey epstein, it should be noted.
That they feel they cannot take on the burden of RMS's stupid comments in addition to their existing scandelous items is not surprising, and should not surprise anyone.
RMS may well have gotten away with making the comments he did, had he been posting on the UCB mailing list.
Why is it wrong to defend someone that is accused of something ? Does an accusation equate to culpability ? He defended him by doubting that he did the things he's accused of, not by excusing those things.
Yes, this bashing is totally unreasonable, he expressed an opinion that the charge against Minsky is not valid. One party makes an accusation, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do for the other party to counter it. Accusation is not the same thing as proof. There is a category of accusations these days that are just the same as a jury sentence, if you're labeled, then you're done. No evidence, witness saying this didn't happen ? Still guilty.
It's frustrating and hard to find real information regarding what he did say and what he did not say, so I feel I shouldn't play the judge here. I did find this direct quote of him on his website, and it doesn't sound to me, from reading this piece, that he was trying to defend Minsky:
> Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be imprisoned.
I do not think this changes everything, but if this is indeed his honest opinion, then I do feel that he might have simply communicated his opinions very poorly.
> "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing," Stallman wrote in his post last Wednesday. "Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term 'sexual assault' in an accusation."
[and in my opinion: it's the last sentence that made his statement wildly inappropriate. It's one thing if he wanted to raise the possibility that Minsky was deceived, and while incorrect it would be excusable, but his last sentence is a belligerent assumption of bad faith, and it is highly inappropriate for him to use such absolute language in denying sexual assault]
His use of "plausible" is interesting here. It is plausible that she wouldn't announce that she was a blackmail-trap/underaged sex worker/trafficked slave or whatever.
It's not plausible that an 17 year old would be propositioning old men
without any external influence in this situation. I think he's strongly implying this and that's part of what got the strong reaction.
I'd suggest due to that, the statement is dodgy even before you get to the bit you highlight.
Well, he could have assumed she is paid for it and does it for money.
I mean, I agree that remote island full of underage girls throwing themselves at old men raise questions and most reasonable men would conclude it's too likely to be coercion rather than voluntary sex work to get involved but I still think it's not ridiculous to have discussion about it.
I also happen to agree with Stallman about the wording. If you call any activity that constitutes statutory rape in some jurisdictions a sexual assault you're doing disservice to people who experience what is more commonly understood as assault as that devalues the term and the suffering that comes from it.
> said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum
I don’t think what he said was wildly inappropriate for the forum. It’s an open discussion forum. People not understanding and being offended is not something that RMS or a reasonable poster could predict or prevent.
I read through the entire thread and it’s not as bad as people are interpreting. I think people are inferring intent and meaning that just isn’t there.
Let's be honest, the people who disagree with your comment are worried that eventually someone will out them for their terrible behavior as well! It's shocking to me how unaccustomed to being held accountable some people are.
Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society.
Welcome to online witch hunt. Anyone defending the witch is probably a witch as well.
How about a rational debate concerning factual things?
I have allmost no background information, knew RMS only as the weird FSF guru .. and it is very hard for me to find facts. Most of the debate is about other stuff, than what actually happened.
A rant by a female MIT student, offended by something she rad of RMS she did not know before.
She writes very emotional, but much better, in terms of facts, than what vice etc. made out of it
Yes, RMS seems to be a sexist, unsensible at least, maybe not fit to lead such a position, but the media coverage about it is disgusting and misleading. But so is also some of the criticism of the women who started it. She seemed to be really upset about it and not just a "attention whore". Because there still is lots of sexism in the IT nerd world and being a man I can only try to understand what it means, when you try to show good computer work, but get sexually responses instead. So she reacts different, when she sees the sign on his door: " knights for justice (also hot ladies)" to which I would think, stupid maybe, but not to be taken too serious. But I am not a women. I do not have to avoid his office to not fear sexual mollesting, which apparently quite some students experienced.
its getting increasingly boring to have to engage with people who don't see the irony in a belief that they can be an objective observer of what is "factual" and "rational" in their lives.
Yeah yeah, all information is through a subjective bubble, we can only make approximations to truth, blah blah. Save your thoughts for beginners philosophy course. That is nothing new. Of couse "factual" means, "as factual as possible". Meaning all the accusations, which apparently have been written, listed clearly.
Ok cool i just wanna leave a choice snippet from the vice coverage of the emails here so we can all be on the same page about what we're doing devils advocate for here:
> Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.
> In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
These are totally reasonable things normal people say!
> Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked
Vice is taking a quote of only two words out of context. Stallman was saying that Epstein was coercing his victims to present to Minsky that they were "entirely willing". Basically what pimps do. Stallman's argument was that Minsky was a victim of Epstein's pimping.
I don't agree at all with Stallman's conclusions or way of thinking (and from all the other independent reports of his behavior, he should have been reprimanded for his approaches decades ago), but Vice is just peddling pure yellow journalism, you can't trust their reporting.
Those snippets are just not enough information, to judge someone "normal" or not.
(assuming "not normal" means sick in a clinical or criminal way)
Because, to that sentence:
“it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
I would agree.
I simply define "rape" as sex that was enforced, usually with physical violence or threat of it. Or maybe existential threats of other kind.
Mixing that term with consensual sex with a 17 year old is not helpful to actual victims of rape, I believe.
Consider a couple of both 17 ... all ok. Now one of them turns 18 and now their relationship is rape? That does not make sense.
Now there is surely a difference between 17 with 18 and 17 with 70, but I really believe it is not the same category as "rape". Exploitive maybe, depending on the situation. And if in the concrete situation it was actually not consensual, than it also actually might have been rape. I simply don't know that situation and trying to make sense of it. But that small sentence from RMS alone does not justify any witch hunt.
And to those claim:
"Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked."
I would like a actual quote from RMS, that he actually said that.
This is a good demonstration of the larger dynamic. When asked for facts, you reposted the blatant slander by Vice. Ten minutes of reading would have gotten you a primary source, yet you're still acting on Vice's sensationalized falsehoods.
(Maybe this will end up with a second organization for Free software funded by a hefty settlement from Vice Media et al. One can hope!)
> Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society.
Let's consider the logical conclusions of "society" being able to inflict consequences upon someone if they speak an unpopular opinion.
If you're an individual human being, it's likely that you have at least one opinion about something that isn't inline with the overarching culture. The particular issue of Epstein or Stallman or whomever is irrelevant; while you may agree with the mob in this case, next week or next month you might not. Under your proposition, that leaves you with three options:
1. Keep your opinion to yourself and refrain from telling anyone for fear of reprisal. In other words, self-censorship.
2. Changing your opinion to match society's, out of fear of being ostracized.
3. Expressing your opinion and then having your personal or professional life ruined, or at the very least, affected to the point where you suffer financially, mentally, emotionally, or socially.
Which of those three options sounds beneficial to you?
You're describing life in every single society that has ever existed. Do you really believe that any of these things don't happen today or that there's been a place where they didn't happen?
Further, all of your "options" sound amazing if what the person is doing is calling human trafficking victims "willing." It turns out that there is a difference between good and bad things. AND it's actually possible to determine which is which!
This notion that a social technology such as public opinion can be used in a negative way is not some sort of revelation. Weapons only have the morality of those that deploy them. Just as we must decry immoral use we must also celebrate moral use, otherwise we'll be living in a society where people can claim that victims of sexual violence were "willing."
> what the person is doing is calling human trafficking victims "willing."
Please stop spreading this misinformation. As explained in this thread countless times, Stallman never called the victim "willing" -- he just said she might have been threatened into looking like she is.
I understand what you're saying and i'd like to point out, as i have done in other places, that I am a real fan of RMS and his works and have been for years. I'm not on a witch hunt here.
But.
I think its really important for people making this sort of argument to deal with the fact that public people who make public statements do not get to control how those things are taken. In much the same way that your production as an artist isn't entirely yours when you release it to the public, RMS' actions have consequences outside of what he may have meant. I for one dont think for a moment that he means to justify human trafficking. But what he did do what make a statement that can be taken as victim blaming. This is very, very dangerous and there should be consequences.
I still do not see how it can be taken as blaming the victim. Here's the exact quote from my inbox:
> 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's pretty clear to me that he acknowledges the victim to be a victim, who has to deal with threats and coercion __in addition to__ sexual assault. He just argued that Minsky might not have known what was going on, which has nothing to do with what the victim actually felt.
The only people who interpreted this as victim-blaming are the media outlets who straight up lie in their headlines. Here's Vice:
> Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'
Stallman does have a responsibility to ensure he cannot be reasonably misinterpreted, but this headline is a blatant lie.
We cannot allow the norm of "people are responsible for all possible interpretations of what they said". This is completely untenable. The misquotes in Vice etc amount to extracting a single adjective phrase "entirely willing" and adding non-existing context around it. There is no protection against that kind of malicious misquoting.
In a world where wilful misinterpretation was not somehow weaponised I would agree with you, but that is not this world. This norm would leave every PR person completely at the mercy of any enemies they are unlucky enough to make.
What about a harmful one? What if the CEO of a company went around the office telling anyone that’ll listen about how women are just dumber than men and really they should stay in the kitchen. I sure hope there would be consequences.
1) there are material consequences for "expressing an unpopular opinion." some of which aren't up to the person expressing them.
2) those determining the consequences, such as the organizations that let RMS go, are and should be allowed the freedom to self-govern in this way. they are well within their right to refuse to be associated with people who say these things.
Yes, and I'm arguing that a rational mature society should be capable of allowing people to express their opinions and then engaging with them if their opinion is perceived as wrong or incorrect. If, after a reasonable discussion in which everyone is able to clarify their thoughts and opinions, they are still deemed to be too extreme (and I mean genuinely extreme, not simply contrarian) then they can cut ties.
But that isn't what is happening. There is no reasonable discussion. There isn't even any attempt to understand the complexity and nuance of a situation. It's simply: you're gone. It's mob politics 101 and anyone familiar with political history has seen it time and time again.
The main consequence of this mentality will be that organizations like MIT will be filled with yes-men/women and those that toe the intellectual line. And subsequently the real losers will be society and MIT.
Self censorship, the first world's most horrible suffering... Dude, grow up, we all self censor. There are people I want to slap and people I want to fuck, I calm down and think twice before maybe making a relevant face, and let it go, horribly self censoring myself :D
I sure know better than to redefine the moral value of rape in a corporate mailing list, but heh, who would want to horribly self censor their every brain farts, surely not heroic stallman, defender of free speech and provider of no value.
It's designed to suggest that richard stallman's comments are exactly what a creep would sound like and blind defense of him without acknowledging this fact doesn't win anyone any points.
Personally I love the guy and his weird contributions to the field. But how can you look at this and not think "wow thats not ok to say" no matter what we can consider he may have meant after the fact?
I read what he wrote, and i DO think it's okay to say. Further more i think it's RIGHT to have said it, publicly, especially by a person of his standing.
It took an incredible amount of courage and determination for rms to have the impact that he's had on the world.
insofar as we have no evidence or inclination to believe that rms has engaged in any criminal behavior or wrongdoing or abuse of his position, why should it matter at all whether what he says is or is not 'ok'? people say stupid shit all the time, none more so than yourself.
Um, I'm actually worried that I or other person will be punished for something that they didn't do. In the third world country I live in you'd have to accuse someone and then bribe the judge. Turns out that in US one don't even have to bribe anyone, mob will lynch them. You just need to accuse them of right things; e.g. stealing and homicide won't do. Is that the progress that humanity has made?
Let's see:
- judged by angry mob -- yes,
- no ability to defend oneself -- yes,
- killed -- no (though seeing polarization and level of anger here it's possible that he'll be eventually physically assulted),
- person demolished, life ruined -- yes (Stallman got removed from the org he created, got fired from his work. Another poster here written that his friend got accused, defended in court with hard evidence, life is still ruined).
Comparison with lynching seems fair to me.
All of this got me thinking about creating, you know, accepting tech community where everyone is free to express their own opinions. I'm personally fine with my code being called shit and me being called dumbass for a good measure, just tell me what you really think and we'll sort things out faster instead sugar-coating stuff to not hurt my ego.
Lynching has a specific context in the United States; it has the history and connotation of racist terrorism.
No one dislikes Stallman on the basis of the color of his skin, and no one is murdering him. The use is a grossly inappropriate metaphor that diminishes the real meaning of the word.
Well racism connotations permeat everything in US, it's overheated/taboo topic there. Not so much in the rest of the world, see two top dictionary definitions from google:
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.
(Law) (tr) (of a mob) to punish (a person) for some supposed offence by hanging without a trial.
Nothing about racism here. The only thing that doesn't apply to Stallman is that he has not been hanged. That's quite important one. Though words are sometimes used not in their literary meaning (like "I'm killing it" -- well hopefully not).
BTW from what I've gathered this entire thing happened because Stallman was pedantic and has written something along "let's be precise with words, I think what happened was not rape, but statuatory rape because of such and such".
Who owned the island is not relevant, how much money they make is not relevant, and whether they're Stallman's friend is not relevant to either the morality or legality of the matter. Being wealthy or old is not a crime.
Stallman's controversial comment was:
> “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
Whether you agree or disagree that is a reasonable statement to make.
I think RMS made a completely faulty argument and doesn't understand the world assault, which calls into question his state of mind.
That said, I don't really see how this is grounds for termination. Again, I am not defending the guy or his utterly bizarre opinion on the matter. He had a disagreeable personal opinion and wrote it out load... so what? He wasn't advocating for harm of any person, persons, or group.
People are way too sensitive and we are giving away far too much to save face among people who aren't worth the effort.
If I were king for a day and ran some kind of public facing organization here is how I would manage these things:
1. Anybody who communicates or advocates harm to any person, persons, or group gets a naughty warning. On the second offense they are permanently banned, terminated, or what ever.
2. Anybody who communicates offense or defensive language (cry babies) gets their post flagged (suppressed and locked). Sad people feed trolls. They are not hostile, but they are still part of the problem. I am sure they have all kinds of wonderful justifications, but I don't care.
This would allow people to disagree within bounds of acceptable behavior while also preventing mass hysteria and echo chamber insanity.
I don't have US cultural background and it looks insane to me, about level of witch hunts or lynch mobs. Like one accusation of peadophilia is enough to ruin a life, and lives of others that dare to voice opinions counter to that. Same thing with rape. It doesn't matter if it happened or not. Court of law? Nah, why? Clearly if they are accused then they are guilty.
I do a great job do triple overtime and get fired so they can save money it's hard to feel sorry for celebrities when us ordinaries are trashed so hard in the course of regular work why should I feel sorry for Epstein when the industry treats me as trash disposable labor it's refreshing that people are standing up for women finally.
You are burning an innocent men alive with all his legacy just because you believe that he might be wrong when defending a friend. Not even the worst dictatorships were as evil as you. When you think about fascists, think about you .. doing what you think is right as the cost of everyone elses.
I wonder where is the "liberal" rainbow-flag waiving mob, and why none of them remembers that gays were persecuted just a little while ago in exactly same manner. And if they do, why don't they speak out
"colechristensen" is basically spamming this thread with the same message, repeated over and over again. I counted 20 similar comments. One begins to question this guy's sanity.
It doesn't matter if it didn't happen, RMS was defending Minsky in the situation that it did by saying the girl who was less than a quarter of his age would have appeared willing.
That gets you fired. Even if it is entirely hypothetical.
And never shall a man accused of treason have a lawyer, for to defend someone who is accused of treason (and therefore has likely committed treason) is itself an act of treason, is it not?
And surely to defend a rapist, even an accused one, is nearly as bad as being a rapist? Why, perhaps we should skip the courts all together and simply tar and feather them in the public. That's worked out well historically...
He was asked to resign because it's a good play for MIT, you don't have to defend against a wrongful termination suit if the person in question willingly resigns.
If he wanted to defend himself, he would have stayed and fought, let himself get fired, file a lawsuit.
> If he wanted to defend himself, he would have stayed and fought, let himself get fired, file a lawsuit. But he resigned, willingly.
Or possibly, because both the SFC [1] and the head of the GNOME foundation [2] said that they would find it unacceptable to work with the FSF as long as Stallman was still the leader, he realized there was no way staying on would be possible.
To be fair, it is morally absurd to define ‘fired’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was asked to resign or volunteered on their own volition.
Clearly, as the angry Twitter mob of virtue signalers clearly has no desire or respect for objective arguments and accusations based on facts, let alone what the law actually says.
This smear campaign targeted at Stallman only ceased to be about the law once the self-righteous Twitter mob of virtue signallers was forced to admit that Stallman was in fact absolutely right to point out that the accusations correspond to statutory rape instead of sexual assault.
Unfortunately instead of doing the honest thing and admit they were wrong, they started moving the goal post and resort to Cardinal Richelieu tactics to try to come up with anything to keep up with the harassment and persecution.
Your definition of 'wrong' is certainly agreeable but not exactly relevant in this situation. Yes, technically RMS was just being nitpicky, but in the context it doesn't matter. The comment was inappropriate and any person in RMS's place has to understand that because of their high profile everything they say/do can and will be used against them. Those are the rules of the game (public relations), and if you don't play the game (like RMS), the game will play you.
Right, and this time he has finally paid the price. I admire RMS; he's a genius, and he's done a lot with FSF. But I'm tired of his jackassery. If he, in his high profile position, wants to make arguments nitpicking what is rape and what is the age of consent with what is obviously a sensitive subject, then sure. Just don't do a surprised Pikachu when people hate him and want him gone.
> Right, and this time he has finally paid the price
For what?
For stating the obvious?
This time he didn't do anything wrong, other than pointing out what everybody in their right mind think: a dead person who cannot defend himself anymore was being falsely accused of child rape but the evidence just proved that he did no such thing and that, anyway, admitting there was sex involved, it wasn't pedophilia.
> I'm tired of his jackassery.
Who cares what you are tired of?
I'm tired of this constant wining, just because you're alive it doesn't mean your feelings are _so_ important.
But I don't want you to be fired because of it.
> is the age of consent with what is obviously a sensitive subject
so we should not talk about what you think is a sensitive subjects?
It isn't for me, I live in Europe, age of consent in my country is 16.
Are you so self entitled?
Who do you think you are?
> Just don't do a surprised Pikachu when people hate him and want him gone.
> This time he didn't do anything wrong, other than pointing out what everybody in their right mind think: a dead person who cannot defend himself anymore was being falsely accused of child rape but the evidence just proved that he did no such thing and that, anyway, admitting there was sex involved, it wasn't pedophilia.
Nothing has been proven. It hasn't even entered a court of law yet. Yet here you are willing to accept any and all internet rumors. Aren't you a smart individual.
> But I don't want you to be fired because of it.
I absolutely would lose my job if I was holding a high leadership, PR position at my company for making idiotic statements. You would too.
> I don't care what people think.
There you go. No one cares about your sentiment. Literally I don't care about what it is you have to say at all. Why should anyone care about what YOU, some no-name internet user has to say. The fact of the matter is that people care about what high profile individuals think whether you agree with this or not (once again no one cares about your silly opinions). And someone spoke with their foot in their mouth. Is it technically wrong to state that more people die from medical errors than mass shootings as Neil Degrasse Tyson so eloquently put it? No it's not wrong. You and RMS are so insistent on being right that you can't even understand what context means. You guys are the type of people to get mad at the world and can't understand why you're hated by everyone. So by all means live this way. But no one else does. And don't whine because you're not liked.
And just for the record,
> But he's not a PR. He has never been.
is actually completely wrong. RMS by his own account hasn't written actual code in decades now. What does he actually do with his time on FSF besides go around and do talks? Nothing. What is that? Oh wait... it's literally PR for FSF's values. He does do some things now that I think about it. He writes his silly opinions on CSAIL mailing lists when many thought he wasn't even a part of CSAIL anymore. So he had that going for him as well.
> Do you know the presumption of innocence principle?
So innocent until proven guilty? Oh wow aren't you the legal expert. You're taking Greg Benford's words at face value. Everything is still "he said, she said" and you don't know any more than I do. Yet you're willing to assume that someone simply cannot be guilty of any wrong doing based on pure speculation while calling it evidence. You're not some neutral balanced individual, so stop pretending.
> I can't lose my job, I live in a country where workers freedoms are protected.
This isn't a matter of freedom of speech being violated. Many Americans strongly support free speech compared to many European countries. But your speech obviously has consequences. If you're dumb enough to write things that can get you fired on an email to a large mailing list, then don't blame the world when people don't like it. And RMS didn't break the law. He won't be arrested or fined by the government. But yes employers or organizations can want him gone. Why don't you read what freedom of speech actually means.
> I really don't care.
I already wrote that I don't care about your opinions. So I'm just gonna not read the worthless part here. Congratulations on responding to me not caring about you with you not caring about what I care about. I applaud you.
> And Bosso hasn't played any music in ages, and Schumacher hasn't driven a race car in years.
I'm saying that RMS's previous contributions don't matter. Read between the lines.
> What makes you so sure you're not gonna be next?
You clearly don't understand what I am saying. Literally read what I write if you want to respond sensibly.
> He was founder and president of the FSF foundation.
Yes, and he was asked to resign and the FSF (it's not actually FSF Foundation so learn how acronyms work) will have a chance to live on. It's hilarious how you equate FSF with RMS. Yet the person who is apparently so important to the cause just got himself fired because he couldn't act more sensibly. I anticipate the FSF actually doing something meaningful now.
> He wasn't a PR, he was himself.
You're just saying semantics at this point. RMS had the most comfortable in the world. He went around the world on FSF dime from donations. He lived in a house that MIT provided for him because his old professor Gerald Sussman asked for it. He hasn't written actual software in decades. All he literally did was travel to give talks. If that's not PR, then what is it. I'm glad that fanboys like you exist all the way in Europe. Go start a GoFundMe for Richard Stallman. I anticipate he's not showering again.
It does matter that RMS, in a hypothetical defended the supposed actions in the way that he did.
And yes, I repeated myself many times to several people saying similar things with the intention of facing all of the threads with a similar challenge. So what?
> It does matter that RMS, in a hypothetical defended the supposed actions in the way that he did.
Like... he wrote about it?
Many others did, nobody lost the job.
It must be horryfying to read someone else's opinion in 2019 America...
You're talking like Stallman is some kind of new Ted Bundy...
> And yes, I repeated myself many times to several people saying similar things with the intention of facing all of the threads with a similar challenge. So what?
The irony is to see the SJW movement spiraling out of control. I was reading an article of Stallman's on how to name a non-gendered individual where he proposes all kind of fake pronouns and goes on and on as if it was a new fusion reactor technology he was working on. He's not Chomsky I tell you that.
The thing with him is that people were just so frigging fed up and didn't know what to find to get rid of his ass. One day, he decided to write about the moral definition of rape, the next day he was out :D No need to be a Stallman-level genius to see what happened, he could finally be fired without all the frigging free software extremists yelling censorship... Stallman is now the SJW devil incarnate ahah
I don't see it as RMS defending his friend. He was purely concerned with making the correct accusation. Some people considers that as "defending", which might have never been his intention.
Why would he be concerned with such details if not for defending Minsky? He is weird, and pendatic. But that we knew for a long time.
He's insufferable, you mean. They don't give a rat's ass what he actually said or thought, they wanted him out for so long they couldn't believe their luck he decided to publicly redefine the morality of statutory rape on a corporate mailing list.
Some people do software, like Linus Torvalds, other linger for decades doing nothing and discuss the value of rape. Hope we'll hear less of his nonsense in the future.
I actually haven't seen Minsky being accused. That court transcript says that she was 'directed to have sex' with Minsky but nowhere does it say she did and there is an eyewitness claiming he - Minsky - turned her down.
So RMS is defending his deceased friend as though he was accused, it would have been more effective to question the accusation rather than to defend as though it had happened.
> How is it you've made half a dozen posts in a thread about this without even bothering to read what you're commenting about?
Par for the course, ditto everybody else that did not bother to read the court transcript. It's 200+ pages but doublespaced, you can go over the whole thing in an hour or two, it makes you wonder how Epstein ever managed to avoid being jailed for a long time.
I'll bet that before this whole thing is over there will be many more 'names' that end up disgraced or worse.
The discussion is between free speech and appropriate speech. Which is both sides have tribes supporting them Libertarian vs SJW. You might not see the divide but every one else does and you can see that.
> The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other"
You might not agree with or recognise the tribes but they exist.
> This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired.
MIT is a university its a public place where adults go to seek truth, if this is an inappropriate place for adults to discuss adult subjects then where is?
I get the argument it's not "public" because the land is privately owned but it is a place where the public gather. While I frequently see this argument it is never accompanied with what would be an appropriate public venue for adults to discuss inappropriate things.
Stop the cancel culture .. LEARN TO SPEAK WITH PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH ! You fake belief that you are perfect is the exact reason you will be cancelled if you ever succeed in anything
RMS was defending Minsky, awkwardly. As someone who has a history of social awkwardness, he should be forgiven for this. He's been a good steward of the FSF, which has doing important work in the service of free (read: non-backdoored) hardware lately. I know there are good people still at the FSF, but I can only hope they are as incorruptible and dogged as RMS.
The way this attack came suddenly out of the depths makes me suspect something coordinated. It's too similar to how Tor was seized, and how Linus was almost dethroned. There's something nasty afoot, and I don't like it one bit.
Yeah all he really wanted was a platform to disseminate his ideas. The open source community has been a great place for that to happen, and I hope the legacy of his ideas related to freedom of information, etc. get the honored legacy that they deserve.
But now that he has an audience there's nothing stopping him creating an independent non-profit to tackle these issues philosophically. There's no need anymore to be the gatekeepers of the actual code. It should be free, after all.
So that's where I'm putting my money: Stallman announces a new organization to philosophize freely, not involved directly with code, and the FSF becomes more elastic on certain topics (integrating with other toolchains, etc.).
"Accountability" for an awkward statement? You'll have to excuse me if I don't think someone deserves a public flogging for poor phrasing and awful timing.
When you're talking about organizations that are CRITICAL to software freedom, I'd much rather have an incorruptible but thoroughly awkward ideologue in charge than an unknown quantity. Who comes next? Will they compromise on things that shouldn't be compromised? It's another thing to worry about.
> https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025
Someone who make unsourced claims of having refused to contribute to anything with an open license because of RMS poor taste jokes on mailing list. I wonder if this kind of openmindedness is good to prove a point on how RMS is bad, maybe someone who does not want to contribute to software improving the world but unrelated to RMS on the sole basis that the licensing allows other freedom is not a good basis to support RMS having to be removed.
> https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265
A reply to the previous tweet from someone who was told an unsourced myth about plants in an office and making up a story about it. She said she's been shown one office with a lot of plants, told that there are many other such offices, that the reason for the plants is to ward off RMS.
This piece of lore has been removed from wikipedia for lack of source[1]
>https://mobile.twitter.com/quince/status/1172290839369773057
also citing the same original medium publication misrepresenting RMS words and calling for his removal on this basis, admitting she actually never met RMS but tells how the same piece of myth was transmitted to her in form of a joke and despite not knowing tries to provide context for trying to ward off RMS: interacting with him is awkward and make them uneasy.
I sincerely doubt that RMS being socially awkward is news or supporting the call for his removal in any way.
I got a reply to my post, now deleted, asking for more named sources. I don't see how you can dismiss the first two tweets as "unsourced" when they are first-hand statements.
@quince's comment is not first-hand about RMS personally but the damage done to the institution that makes excuses for powerful people. This is not about him being just awkward, it's that MIT will never confront him about threatening behavior or stand up for his victims.
Edit: so in other comments you've mentioned that blog post claims "this isn't about Stallman" but you're still defending specific points about Stallman. This isn't about Stallman, this is about MIT. Stallman might be "awkward" but MIT doesn't confront him or even pull him to the side to tell him he's been rude. They don't stand up for the people he's hurt, they don't protect the people he's scared off. They don't ask for independent investigations into more serious allegations. This isn't about Stallman - it's not exactly about Epstein, Minsky, Negroponte, etc either. It's about the institution, the power structure, that protects people in certain positions at the expense of everyone else.
I consider Sarah Mei an untrustworthy source. Last year she said the term Domain Driven Development is exclusionary to women because 'DDD' is a bra size in America and therefore the name must be a pornographic reference[0]. Furthermore, in the linked tweet she doesn't actually say anything concrete about Stallman, it's just her feelings about him. She's just stirring the pot.
> Obsolete, already been updated in other comments
Ah, so three days ago he stated that he's changed his mind and having sex with children is actually wrong. Well, glad we got that cleared up! No need to read anything he wrote about that before, it's obsolete now.
Sometimes yes. Leaders are always accountable, but not always responsible for outcomes, RMS was responsible for his actions, now he must be held accountable.
Why not leave that to the justice system instead of an angry mob? Why should people be held accountable by a mob? That's a horrible state that I had thought civilization had finally climbed out of, but it's back again with internet mobs and people being fired as punishment for failing to correctly adhere to the mob's arbitrary preferences. If you really think he did something wrong, then try to get the law changed so future people won't repeat the same offense.
He didn't break the law, nor did he do something worthy of judicial punishment, but that does not mean that he can not or should not be held to account. RMS lost a leadership position, that's all.
And Let's be clear, that is lawful is not necessarily moral, that which is moral is not necessarily lawful.
If it was just a one-off thing isolated from other recent events, you might be correct. But due to Epstein's association with MIT and his other history of controversial statements and actions with FSF, they couldn't just let him make an apology and hide out for awhile.
The fact that this is a more friendly forum than the general public, and yet the majority of people who are sticking up for him here seem to be anonymous conspiracy theorists and people who want to advocate lowering the age of consent, seems to be pretty damning in itself for his prospects.
A history of bad behavior isn’t a reason to excuse bad behavior: it is a reason not to excuse bad behavior because the person has had many chances to change that behavior and decided not to.
And he didn't "Have his wang cut" - He sincerely apologized, he chose to step away from the kernel for a period to work on.. well not being such an asshole.. and now he's back being a good community steward. Which seems like a fine outcome?
The pendulum has swung from "we give powerful, highly skilled, or accomplished people a carte blanche license to be total assholes" to a mentality where we're willing to ostracize people for certain types of assholery.
Has it swung too far? Perhaps. I have a rule: "society always over-corrects."
Should it swing back? No. Some moderation might be in order, but I'm not interested in going back to the time of "but Michael Jackson was so talented!"
(I'm not comparing Stallman to Michael Jackson, just using the latter as an example of a mentality.)
I don't personally have a dog in this fight, but I do get the sense that perhaps this was not an isolated incident but more of the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sure there is. How about: "the deposition never actually accuses Minsky of having sex with anyone in the first place"? Or how about, "Greg Benford says (https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/) he was personally present at the incident and witnessed there was no sex"? Wow, who knew it was so easy to defend 'a child molester' for whom there's 'no way to defend' them.
1. The deposition that's been made public doesn't allege sex with anyone as it was in a lawsuit against Maxwell for trafficking activities. That's outside its scope.
2. I don't find Benford credible.
3. Minsky kept taking Epstein's money and holding conferences on Epstein's island for over a full decade after the events Giuffre and Benford describe took place. Is there any benign explanation for that?
The benign explanation is that he didn't know Epstein was a monster (few outside the DA's office did until 2018) and that he accepted funding for AI research.
Literally any Google search of the man's name would show that he's a fucking monster. It was never a secret, much less after he was convicted of trafficking an underage prostitute in 2008. Nobody can plead ignorance of his crimes. Everyone who took money from him, traveled with him (and his young 'friends'), is absolutely guilty by association of his continued crimes.
Excuse me? There is precisely zero evidence suggesting that MM did anything whatsoever wrong, or, in fact, had sex with an underage woman. There is an accusation by a different woman who calls the woman claiming to have had sex with MM a 'liar' in court testimony.
I tend to trust her as well. Assuming everything she says is true to the best of her understanding, has she claimed to have had sex with Minsky? I've only seen her claims that she was asked by Epstein to do so. I find this an important distinction.
Your original reply to mine was flagged, so I'll reply here.
I was not trying to defend Minsky with my question, I was honestly curious. If someone had instead committed burglary and you said "robbery" I would have made a similar comment; either way it's a thief, but those two crimes do describe different actions, and it's possible I misunderstood what was going on from my merely cursory reading of the news articles in question.
Freedom of speech means that people are free to defend what other people find morally objectionable. The idea that the "leaders" should be morally pure is understandable, but ultimately very elitist.
The situation with Chomsky is not equivalent to this. Chomsky did not want Faurisson prosecuted by French law for his views. Chomsky did not himself express the bad views.
Stallman here was the one expressing the bad views, so he is Faurisson not Chomsky.
freedom of speech merely means the government can't act against you. it doesn't bind any other entity from responding freely: in fact their response is also freedom of speech
yeah, uh, these are not the same, at all. Chomsky did not do a holocaust denial, Chomsky isn't the one whose speech was under a microscope, he was the one standing up for the right do socially unpalatable scholarship (or whatever you call what Faurission was doing). And for the record, the Faurisson affair comes up all the time from people who hate chomsky and want to see him brought down in the world.
Anybody who has spent time around RMS knows there are problematic behaviours in almost every interaction. This is not just about this one incident, but this one incident where he defends "voluntary pedophilia" was obviously the last straw.
I've met him a few times, put him up on my sofa once. I'd say almost every 15-30 minutes in his presence I would stop myself from saying "that's not an appropriate way to behave" or "please don't say that in that way, you're being rude", for fear of insulting him. Perhaps if more people had done that rather than being in awe and reverence (and there are many people who treat him that way), or just looking for a quiet life (my excuse), we wouldn't be here now.
It is clear to me that he has very low EQ or at least empathy for other people. I have spoken to others who have interacted with him who have suggested he might be on the autistic spectrum, and whilst I am not qualified to make a diagnosis, should such a diagnosis be made it would not surprise me.
At the weekend whilst this was blowing up I suggested he needed help. I think he is genuinely completely unaware why any of these statements would cause others to question his values. Freedom of speech is not a right to be a jerk, and he is unaware that he is seen as a jerk by a lot of people because of the many things he has said and done over many years.
It seems there are many people here who likewise are blind-sided as to why suggesting an underage girl would be entirely willing to have sex with an adult and presented herself willingly would be nothing more than a 'controversial opinion'. There are also people who think this is the only thing he's done that has caused problems - it's not.
I think there are deeper issues at play here, and he would benefit from counselling or therapy of some sort. Most people could even without his behaviour, so I'm definitely going to suggest it would be useful in his case. At a minimum it would help him navigate having a huge chunk of his life disappear over the last 24 hours.
I wish him well, but like almost every ex-colleague of his I've spoken to or who has been outspoken on social media about this: the FSF and MIT/CSAIL will now be a better place to be for others, and I hope that RMS gets the help he has needed for a long time.
I wish him well, but I also know that a large number of people will breathe a sigh of relief now that they can go about their work and studies without having to navigate him.
> It seems there are many people here who likewise are blind-sided as to why suggesting an underage girl would be entirely willing to have sex with an adult and presented herself willingly would be nothing more than a 'controversial opinion'.
As what he said is literally presented, it is a possible interpretation of the facts: that Minsky may not have known she was coerced because of Epstein's instructions. How much of Minsky's culpability this erases if Minsky did indeed have sex with her (which is disputed itself) is open to debate.
Buuuuuuut, that's a pretty nuanced point to make. It needs to be made more carefully and respectfully to not just descend into rape apologia. Epstein's (and maybe Minsky's) victims are still alive and have feelings. And we want to create a better culture.
And if you're the guy who has already gone on record for not knowing why "voluntary pedophilia" is OK--- maybe you're not the guy to make this point. Because, after all, there's plenty of evidence that you're not so good at it, and your history taints it all.
> an underage girl would be entirely willing to have sex with an adult and presented herself willingly would be nothing more than a 'controversial opinion'.
But this is not what he said. He clearly states coerced. I think the outrage should come only after a correct reading comprehension.
And what of all of the qualified developers who are excluded from the community by ignorant or bigoted people in positions of power? What of their technological ability?
Not trying to be a dick here, but in the hypothetical "on the internet nobody knows who you are", why would you need to specify if you're a man or a woman?
I've personally always loved the interactions I've had on the internet back in the 90s-early 00s because someone's opinions/contributions could be analysed objectively without having to fall into the trap of subconscious biases based on the person you're speaking to rather than the object of discussion.
This is not to negate your feelings of being under-appreciated or respected because of your gender, but I am genuinely curious as to why your first response in this scenario would be to fake your gender rather than not caring about it.
The point is presumably that online interactions do not form the totality of a career or working life in software.
Yeah, here on HN you don't need to care whether I'm a man, woman, chocolate bar or UFO. In the real world when I take a CS course, go to a conference, take a job etc, having my physical form is pretty useful.
You are talking about a brilliant man actually getting fired, vs some hypothetical what-if that hasn't been proven.
Why not go after actual occurrences of discrimination, rather than assuming anytime some speaks out in a non-PC manner, that it means they are also going to discriminate against others? This is arresting for murder before it happens. It's the canonical example of "thought crime".
Tons of women are describing his shitty behavior over the years and how they were told to avoid him. "Christ, why would I want to work there near this guy" leading to women leaving the community produces the same outcome as organized discrimination.
If RMS had just thought this stuff in his head he'd be fine. His actions harm the community. This is the exact opposite of a "thought crime".
"Waded in" is exactly the right phrase. RMS is neither a legal expert nor a moral philosopher. Commenting on the definition of assault and the nature of consent is outside his field of expertise and he should have just replied with a curt "I will not be attending".
My personal takeaway is that it's important to understand the limitations of your own knowledge before succumbing to the urge to comment on something.
The man is known for not keeping his mouth shut when he sees something that bothers him. While I may not like his politics I agree that he should speak his mind.
I had to scroll really deep in this page to understand some context. Because the link of this page goes just to say "Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board of directors."
The discussion on this page expresses many personal opinions, many interpretations and a very small amount of facts.
I personally had to go somewhere else to understand what happened [1] (in German only), yes it is a strong opinion, but at least with references to back the claims up.
For me Richard Stallman is a hero. Through his work he made me discover a lot about IT and his life showed me that there are still people that are fighting for their cause without compromise and personal corruption and are ready to give a lot for the society. I never did and never will do as much as he did for society - and therefore I am thankful that there are people like him to be inspired.
It's pretty incredible reading the comments on that bit, and noticing how the battle lines are drawn almost perfectly along gender (with a few male defectors, but no female)
Just as much as RMS was right[1], ESR was right[2]. The "cancel culture" is harming the free software movement by practicing human version of Microsoft's EEE[3]. The cancel culture enters the community, establishes interests groups, and starts knocking down prominent contributors. The demands are backed by angry crowds on social media rather than by contributions.
It's time for us to defend each other, and to hold contributions above outraged crowd's size.
--
[1] "Stallman was right", countless comments here on HN, on LWN, and all over the internet
RMS's defences of unacceptable behaviour are also a contribution. They're a negative contribution, and they contribute to driving away other contributors.
Linus eventually realised that his abuse of contributors was a negative contribution and agreed to change. RMS has .. not got to that point.
>RMS's defences of unacceptable behaviour are also a contribution.
I've seen the accusations against RMS. I've seen the RMS emails in the thread[1].
RMS' emails bemoan wishy-washy reporting, and are centered around calls for clarity and precision. With some insensitive words.
In response we got even more wishy-washy reporting - weasel words were used, misleading summaries instead of quotations[2], and focus was placed on how people felt outraged. People who weren't part of the discussion.
This isn't the way to build great software. This is tribes warring on social media.
>They're a negative contribution, and they contribute to driving away other contributors
Riddle me this: which drives away contributors - private email threads, or social media wars of attrition?
Is my judgement right? Maybe I am missing something big, that happens. Nonetheless I decide to side with somebody I've seen reliably exhibit the same character over decades, rather than with out-of-character accusations. I decide to side with somebody who delivered great projects[3] over decades - rather than with a social media conflict.
> RMS' emails bemoan wishy-washy reporting, and are centered around calls for clarity and precision. With some insensitive words.
The "insensitive words" seem the issue for me, from my reading of his emails, and referring to them as just that seems an understatement.
> The announcement [...] does injustice to Marvin Minsky. The injustice is the word "assaulting". The term "sexual assault" is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation; [...] The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's harem. [...] The word "assault" presumes that he applied force [...] but the article says no such thing.
Yes the above words are insensitive (calling such accusations "vague and slippery" by definition does a massive injustice to anyone who's ever suffered such a fate), but much more objectively, they're also blindly or wilfully false. The article he links as a reference opens with the following words:
> A victim of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein testified that she was forced to have sex with MIT professor Marvin Minsky
There is no more direct contradiction of RMS' statements than the opening words of the article he links in his email. There's absolutely no question of his communication on this being appropriate.
I've read the same emails and I agree with the previous comment. Despite english not being my mother tongue, it is clear what RMS is saying and there's no room for interpretating his words differently without misinterpreting or changing what he meant.
RMS words can not do massive injustice as they are words not judges, besides his words are actually expressing an attempt to correct a perceived injustice of misqualifying some accusation toward a dead guy that cannot defend himself.
Actually the headlines fits exactly the point RMS is making, that if she was forced, Epstein was the one not Minsky. Then again do not stop at the headline, read the whole article and read the source used for the article, there is no mention of the use of force, the only mentions of her being forced to have sex are with different persons and contradicts her earlier 2011 allegations (page 33). The part mentioning Minsky does not even confirm she actually had sex with him, only that she was sent to by Ms Maxwell (page 182).
So I guess you are right there's absolutely no question here, but not in the direction that would fit your narrative and opinion.
> at least one source that claims that he turned her down
We're not debating what happened: as far as I know, Minsky is presumed innocent until any potential judgements are delivered. What RMS was debating was not whether Minsky has done anything wrong, but whether he has been accused of doing so.
Minsky was accused of having sex with a girl who was being coerced at the time. Even if one wants to split hairs about Epstein being some kind of enforcer figure of said coercion, I'm pretty surprised that people would somehow believe this would nullify Minsky's alleged act being considered sexual assault?
He may not have done it. He is still only "accused". But the act he is accused of is inarguably assault.
My understanding is that RMS is saying the girl being forced to have sex with Minsky unknowingly to Minsky !== Minsky assaulted them. The person who forced them did.
There was an "intervention" where a group of long-time colleagues and senior kernel contributors took Linus off and told him their dissatisfaction in person.
Meanwhile, some angry woman publicly calls for Stallman's removal and it seems we've gone with that. And are acting like the outcome here is entirely due to Stallman being an asshole.
I don't think she's the first person to object to his behaviour. I've seen a few more people posting their stories of objectionable behaviour, but I'm reluctant to point HN at them.
Edit: I wish you wouldn't do something that you feel puts other people at risk just to back up your point. Especially since you seem to think you have the moral high ground.
You are happy to throw other people under a bus to win an internet argument. Some angry woman who admits her screed wasn't really about RMS per se threw him under a bus. And you're fine with it. Because you seem to think that's morally acceptable if you have some kind of justification.
Social outcomes aren't about the actions of a single person. They are about the cumulative consequences of the actions of many people.
How people choose to respond to problematic behavior is part of that -- and often not in a good way.
If those are to be counted as "throwing someone under a bus", then what about the person allegedly assaulted by Minsky? Isn't RMS also "throwing her under a bus" to win an internet argument?
> How people choose to respond to problematic behavior is part of that -- and often not in a good way.
Well, yes. There don't seem to be any good answers here. Handling it privately is not at all reliable and may result in the complainer getting privately blacklisted. Going public can be effective, but only if you make a major storm - the outcomes of which can no longer be controlled.
We don't know if people have tried to get RMS to get his act together. But this doesn't seem to be a first complaint out of nowhere.
It's pretty irrelevant whether or not she knew who RMS was before all this. She found out about him, did her research, and uncovered some pretty messed up stuff.
"Some angry woman" also listed several examples of bad behavior reported to her by multiple sources, dating back decades. While a lot of it was new to me, it's nearly impossible that this wasn't known by people at MIT and/or the FSF who could have acted in the past, but didn't.
IMO this was a long time coming, not some brand-new thing.
Examples that came as an afterthought after admitting this was not about Stallman and misrepresenting his words.
She did not correct her misrepresentation but instead went on to publish in an appendix what had been dugged and nitpicked to paint RMS in a way that fit her narrative.
the appendix is easy to debunk:
1 can be summarized as RMS has opinions, his personal opinions not being the same as the majority means they are problematic (use a reversal of burden of proof fallacy in the process). Goes on to says that institutions/companies that do not remove people with personal opinions different from the majority should be removed from the institutions otherwise it should be interpreted that the institutions themselves support those opinions.
Of course totally overlooks the fact if instead of public shaming, calling for witch hunt and not talking with the person, having a fact-based conversation with the person about his/her opinion could be enough to change this opinion as had happened here: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
2 is a collection of applying today standard to 40 years old society, expectation of normal behaviour to someone in the autistic spectrum and leaving the reader to fill the holes when the reason for having a mattress in his office and being proud of it is long documented and unrelated to the sexual framing attempt.
Then she presents a 1983 report pointing how it was for women is CS at MIT at the time which makes no mention of RMS in any way but is nevertheless add as charge to him.
3. Goes on to put RMS in the same bag with Epstein, and mentions #metoo as if RMS had been mentioned in it with no explanation and no evidence. Rants about MIT and calls for other institutions to go on witch hunts on threat of chaos such as the one she just caused.
4. is about her personal life and how she felt in social context trying to diminish her efforts and accomplishment, how she is desensitized and prepared for escalation from Stallman but disappointed that he did not and instead went on to apologize. Unhappy with the apology and impervious to the fact that she is responsible and the cause for the misunderstanding and the media coverage, she uses this apology as a call to other people to take her action as a model and fight the powerful people.
So as a whole this appendix is really not more evidence that the original author missed the point and further attacked a wrongly perceived threat and as a result polarized further against RMS and her.
1 -- No one is saying that if you don't have the same views as the majority, you're problematic. But some non-majority views, like the one you link to -- his last-minute recant of his belief that "voluntary pedophilia" was a thing and didn't harm children -- are nevertheless beyond the pale.
2 -- Stop using "because autism" as an excuse. It's an insult to the many people on the spectrum who don't do and say shitty things. Also, has RMS been diagnosed? Are you a psychologist? If not, I don't think you're qualified to make that statement. I'm not sure you're even reading the same thing I am; she specifically calls out incidents and people who claim RMS specifically harassed them. If you look a bit on Twitter, there are more women coming out who have been similarly harassed. I agree that standards change over time, but when the behavior of 40 has remained consistent over the next 40 years, that's a huge problem.
3 -- It is entirely possible that a single piece can be about and triggered by the actions of one person, but then expand to be more general. Not sure why you can't see that.
4 -- So what? I mean... sure, she has flaws, but so do we all, and that has nothing to do why RMS does shitty things. Also, she _posted the verbatim contents of the emails_ (including the most relevant part, right there, a couple paragraphs into her post). It's on Vice (etc.) for not, y'know, actually reading them and reporting things factually.
I'm just not really sure why you feel the need to latch onto this single post so tightly. It was a catalyst, to be sure, and several media outlets did some incredibly irresponsible, dishonest reporting. But that doesn't change the fact that RMS has been engaging in reprehensible behavior for decades. It's feeling like you're looking at a list of 10 bad things and are saying, "wait, everything is ok because one of these things on the list was wrong!" This might be a shitty straw to break the camel's back, but the camel's back was overdue in breaking.
> I've spent a lot of time working with [RMS] to help him understand why various positions he holds are harmful. I've reached the conclusion that it's not that he's unable to understand, he's just unwilling to change his mind.
So wait, based on what I'm reading in this post, a saner opinion is getting into a debate about the definition of the words sexual assault on a mailing list? I understand people thinking there is a right way and a wrong way to express disillusionment with a particular person, however, what you're doing here is misleading at best.
I'm not really sure why you're expressing derision towards people that don't want sexual assault trivialized.
I dunno, I feel like reading these types of posts, which are prevalent in this thread, that I have less and less in common with people on Hacker News. Also it's not a bad thing to want social justice, no matter how many times you type SJW.
It tells me that HN has more people who fear being accused of sexual assault than people who are afraid of suffering sexual assault.
Somehow the former group has trouble imagining the fear of the latter group is more likely, within its demographic, to happen, and its outcome more deeply damaging, because its damage is somehow related to emotions. No emotions allowed. We're working with capital-R Reason.
—
Next time I hear about "the pipeline" on HN, I'm going to imagine something like the fish tube.[0] If only we had such a tube to pipe potential hackers into engineering and computer science, we would have a more diverse industry.
It tells me that HN has more people who fear being accused of sexual assault than people who are afraid of suffering sexual assault.
I don't know what your point is, but smearing all of HN based on the fact that it is a predominantly male environment isn't some kind of constructive path forward.
If you are seeing an "overwhelming amount of defending pedophilia" I suggest you are reading a lot into what isn't there.
I don't see any comments defending pedophilia in the comments here.
Whatever else the young woman was - trafficked, coerced, abuse - she was reportedly 17 years old.
The moral view will be understandably quite varied, especially because Epstein himself did abuse younger girls, and the 17 year old may not have been free in her decisions.
But lawmakers around the world and throughout the USA have set a standard to work with if we are talking about age.
Within that standard, 17 is fully legal, above the age of consent, to consent to sex with another adult with no upper age limit on the other adult, in most countries and in 74% of the states of the USA (37 out of 50). Indeed, 16 is also fully legal in the majority of the US.
So when people imply we should all be outraged that someone may have had sex with a 17 year old on the specific grounds of statutory rape, that is highly location-dependent.
Calling it pedophilia is something else again. The young lady in question was significantly older than the age where it's appropriate to call something pedophilia, under any official classification of pedophilia.
As Wikipedia puts it: "Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13."
So far as I can tell, nobody is defending or promoting pedophilia in these comments.
> How do we find a constructive path forward with a group that is unwilling to condemn pedophilia and child abuse or those who advocate and defend it.
It's hard to imagine a constructive path forward with that kind of argument.
Whatever else it was, it simply was not pedophilia, not even a little bit.
In my view, if you are genuine with your stated intent not to troll, you failed with this one.
I imagine you probably think I'm a pedophilia apologist as well now. Which is why I've posted under a throwaway handle, like a lot of people. It's really striking how many people in this HN thread appear to be afraid of having their actual name associated with their comments, including well reasoned and fact based comments. I think that it is not because they are embarrassed, rather it is because they see how angry and inconsiderate people are, being happy to throw out heinous false accusations that ruin lives, so it's smarter to stay anonymous on this topic.
I would like to rewrite it into something less abrasive, but this was not intended to highlight the gender split. In some circumstances a group of men can be more empathetic towards a woman than a group of women would be.
I believe the default state is to be moved by what you can perceive as a more immediate danger. This doesn't stem from some underhanded camaraderie, one's mind is just more attuned to what can directly affect it.
Here, the gender split already makes HN more likely, when all comments are summed into a chaotic generalized opinion, to defend RMS by default. He's a man, he's a hacker, he's at the root of many things we take for granted.
The gender split is just some context (and not even the most important piece of context — if I had time to discuss this at length, I would posit that if HN or tech in general were evenly split, it would have the same lack of empathy, just manifested differently.) for the next paragraph, which is the real problem: pretending feelings, emotions and perceptions can be discarded. Which is what makes me resent HN sometimes, as the parent says:
> I'm not really sure why you're expressing derision towards people that don't want sexual assault trivialized. I dunno, I feel like reading these types of posts, which are prevalent in this thread, that I have less and less in common with people on Hacker News
Once emotions are discarded, you can justify even genocide as long as you can convene an outcome that is favorable to a majority.
> I'm not really sure why you're expressing derision towards people that don't want sexual assault trivialized.
I have no issues at all with people who disagree with RMS or myself or anyone else, and express their opinions. I have issues with people who believe that their opinions and the sensationalist claims media distort them into justify a mob crusade trying to destroy organizations, careers, friendships and so on.
> Also it's not a bad thing to want social justice,
Social justice will never arise from people who organize lynch mobs.
you seem to assume there was assault from Minsky on Giufre, and I wonder where you get that idea.
I'm part of the people who do not want sexual assault trivialized and for that to happen not making inconsiderate use of the term is important to not strip it of its meaning.
After having read the court documentation, I have yet to see any evidence that Minsky assaulted Giufre, heck there's not even any indication he did have sex with her, only that she was directed to by Ms. Maxwell.
It is a bad thing to want social justice because it undermines our legal framework. It ruins peoples lives before they've had a chance to defend themselves. You only want it because you're on the side shouting down throats. Wait until it's your turn
RMS tried to do opposite of trivialising - to get facts straight and put proper blame on each person involved.
Everyone includes justice. Including bad actors who shouldn't be blamed for what they didn't do. Judging everyone for they actually did is the true social justice.
No, he did not. He tried to give the word "assault" a weird meaning, ignoring both the everyday English meaning of the word and the legal meaning of the word in a discussion about having sex with a coerced child arranged by a convicted sex offender.
AFAIK Epstein was not a convicted sex offender back when the original story happened.
Is it truly an assault if Minsky didn't know what and how someone was sent to him? If someone forces a non-obviously underage girl to come to you at a bar and seduce you, should you be tried for sexual assault?
You are responsible for your own actions. In this case your own negligence led to you committing a crime. Just as if your actions negligently lead you to kill someone that is a crime.
If you have sex with someone that hasn’t or can’t give consent then yes you should be at the very least charged with a crime. If someone else coerced that result then they should be charged with a crime as well. That someone else is also responsible does not absolve you of the crime.
The bottom line is that you don’t have to have sex with someone.
And killing-by-negligence is persecuted entirely differently than killing-by-intent.
If someone gives you a consent because they were forced by someone else to give you a consent, who is to blame? How deep do you have to go to ensure that the consent is true consent?
Note I said charged. I suspect if you can honestly make the case that you thought there was genuine consent that fact would be taken into account in the decision to prosecute and in sentencing.
If you are concerned about whether consent has been given genuinely or not I’d recommend slowing right down and doing more to establish that there is legitimate consent or not have sex with that person at all. There is no requirement to have sex.
Like if you’re in the situation as a gone to seed old guy who is approached by a teenager at a party it’s not rocket science to maybe think twice about having sex with them.
Not only charged. There's quite a bit of difference in public perception and how you're treated. E.g. if you hunted someone down and killed in called blood or someone happened to die because of your neglect. E.g. as engineer or doctor who did a mistake.
Yes, this i would love to know. Is it? And what if you card her (knowing that if she’s in the bar in the US, she must be 21, otherwise she’s acting illegally), and she shows you a convincing fake id?
This is an era where you can only have extreme opinions. If you are not all-out against statutory rape, you are seen as pro-rape. One is not like the other.
You don't magically get the mental tools for informed consent for sex the day you turn 18. You may get over the threshold for informed consent before, you may do so much later, and some people may not get there at all.
Classifying his opinions as fundamentally wrong is a childish view of the world. He does not advocate non-consensual sex, nor does he argue for pedophilia. He holds a much more nuanced view, which may be wrong for the current US moral compass but is not fundamentally/laws-of-nature wrong as is being painted by SJWs.
These extreme authoritarians are also driving away contributors as well. Currently I refuse to participate, donate, or contribute to any project that supports these authoritarians
Linus bent the knee to identitarian extremism. RMS did not and the FSF forced him out so they could bend the knee to identitarian extremism. If Linus had not bent the knee then the Linux Foundation would have forced him out.
Open Source and Free Software is being attacked on 2 fronts
Corporatism that is taking over and promoting "Open Source" Libraries and Licenses that are very restrictive to User Freedom
The Authoritarian / identitarian left that want to cancel any programmer, dev, or person in software development that does non conform to identitarian Political agenda
I came in to Free Software because it was a libertarian movement, now everyone is trying to drive out all the libertarians and it will kill the movement. Free Software and authoritarianism are not compatible
For me it looks like corporate hijack of open source projects.
One barely known person wrote an opinion about a person who's well-known in a specific group and who is respected and has appropriate power, and suddenly all the corporate media write about it. And it happened multiple times.
I think that the biggest problem is that people in the field don't give violent resistance each time it happens. Bad actors are everywhere, you have to fight them.
People don't call these people what they are - corporate prostitutes, they don't even say "Je suis Stallman/Linus, etc."
They see what happens and just cowardly accept it.
I'm not clear on how terminal ads are related to sexual assault? Or indeed what Linus (who runs Linux) and Stallman (who runs or ran GNU) have to do with the unrelated NPM commercial open source ecosystem?
First of all: sexual assault has nothing to do with either Stallman or Linus!
Secondly: their strong leadership brought us an hacker community devoted to the product and correctness of the result, regardless of their personality, as technical leader they excelled and when they went over the line it was for the benefit of the community, never for their ego.
Now we have weaker leadership, attention has moved from being right to being popular, salaries are valued more than technical skills, corporations have infiltrated open source communities changing the meaning of `free` in free software from "free as in free speech" to "free as in free beer" and we ended up with package managers that install trojans or display ads.
If NPM leadership was made by pedantic, ruvid, sometimes assholes, the like of Linus and RMS, this would have never happened.
RMS is a kind of person that wouldn't allow such thing to stand. Luckily he'll be replaced by some faceless MIT/FSF person that will always do what the corporate overlords tell them.
Using the term SJW alone destroys the credibility of any substantial claim using it. If you really want to persuade people, find a term that isn’t mainly employed as incendiary jargon of far-right ideology to categorically dismiss anyone left of their viewpoint.
Far from it, plenty of staunchly liberal people use the acronym SJW. Getting riled up by the term is analogous to people on the right objecting to "white privilege" and complain that it's categorically dismissing white people's opinions.
The bigger irony is that your comment claims that the term is used to categorically dismiss people, while simultaneously categorically dismissing the above poster's commeent.
You may have, but I've never met such a person, and that's a false equivalence. And it is not really ironic; when you use an inflammatory term especially in a headline, you use it knowing what the term evokes and it's a clear sign of what kind of audience you're pandering to. And I will judge that person accordingly. That said, considering the post came out in 2015 (which I didn't know at the time of making that comment), I think it had not yet totally become a blanket term synonymous with "liberals" so I can mostly reserve judgement in this case. Again, though, i don't think this is really all that relevant to the topic of stallman.
The concern has already been raised by sibling comment[0], so cross-posting my response. Let the last line quoted from article be a reply to you.
>This has nothing to do with 'SJWs'
>I think it's much more likely you're clinging to buzzwords.
The ESR's article[1] you are referencing is so much more than just headline. I encourage you to read it, and try to re-construct the events, the thoughts, and the emotions that led ESR to post a piece that explosive. The comment section alone spans some 760 responses over four years, with people chipping in with their observations from the trenches and with their shattered dreams. While writing, ESR was in communication with several victims of then-recent social media mobs, and conveyed their woes.
The two bits of article that stood out to me:
>The hacker culture’s norm about inclusion is clear:
>anybody who can pull the freight is welcome
and
>We must (...)
>learn to recognize their thought-stopping jargon and kafkatraps
I did read it, much as I read the guidelines for this website.
SJW is not an antonym of hacker. Whatever hacker culture's norm is, breaking work relationships and censorship for someone's words or actions is much older than hacker culture and is done my many more groups than 2010s American Democrat voters. Consider 1984, or Mary Whitehouse.
I'm well aware of the problems people like antirez face from others who deem themselves the moral/language internet police, and it is definitely an ongoing problem, but none of this is limited to the tech community, and I'm not really convinced that situations like those are sufficiently comparable to what we see with Stallman here.
You might want to check where you're standing. SJW is common slang, used by the right, the center, independents, and the moderate left to describe a particular subset of the far left. As an anecdote, a girl I recently met told me (unsolicited, I hadn't use the word yet, but we were talking around politics) "I'm fairly liberal but I can't stand SJWs." Ironically, you did in your comment exactly what you said the parent was doing - inadvertently demonstrated that your views are very far from the mainstream in a way that harms your own credibility.
This has nothing to do with 'SJWs' unless you're implying that 'statutory rape is bad' is a political stance of the far-left. I think it's much more likely you're clinging to buzzwords.
Indeed. Its not like he has decided to keep these opinions to himself. He has emailed a work mailing-list to spout this rubbish.
If I had posted this to my work mailing-list: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... then I'd have been bollocked. If I had a history of posting politics defending something that is pretty indefensible (especially in a role where I would be in loco parentis for minors)
I would have limited sympathy if this was expressed privately[1], but its not, its broadcast to all and sundry.
[1] but his position is frankly wrong. Its a big ask to justify sexual slavery.
>I think it's much more likely you're clinging to buzzwords.
The ESR's article[1] you are referencing is so much more than just headline. I encourage you to read it, and try to re-construct the events, the thoughts, and the emotions that led ESR to post a piece that explosive. The comment section alone spans some 760 responses over four years, with people chipping in with their observations from the trenches and with their shattered dreams. While writing, ESR was in communication with several victims of then-recent social media mobs, and conveyed their woes.
The two bits of article that stood out to me:
>The hacker culture’s norm about inclusion is clear:
>anybody who can pull the freight is welcome
and
>We must (...)
>learn to recognize their thought-stopping jargon and kafkatraps
But his argument wasn't 'statutory rape isn't bad,' his argument was 'statutory rape isn't always assault, and saying it is unnecessarily widens the definition of assault.' The widespread, seemingly willful misinterpretation of his statements does make it a SJW witch-hunt imo.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
> I hadn't looked at pictures, but that's clearly the case.
Pictures might give you an idea of how stereotypical someone's gender presentation is for a particular gender, but they aren't dispositive evidence as to gender. In any case, and while I reject this as a valid basis for judgement in the strongest possible terms, I can't even find any post-transition pictures of Emkhe that have anything but a conventionally feminine outward gender presentation (on Google, there are a couple associated with her name that don't, but they are pictures of Chris Wanstranth and Eric S Raymond that are from articles about Emkhe.)
> Why should "gender presentation" influence some one's biological sex?
No one has suggested it should.
“Man” and “woman” are terms of ascribed gender, which until recently was usually ascribed based on assessment of genitalia at birth (“biological sex” is a different though related issue) and considered immutable, but is now, in most of the developed West (despite usually being still initially assessed by genitalia at birth) held as something which should be adjusted to align with gender identity.
> but that shouldn't force me to change my behavio
Obviously, no one (on HN) is forcing you to abandon the retrograde and transphobic behavior of misgendering individuals based on imposing your personal preference for how and on what basis they should be gendered over their gender identity.
"[words] ... should be adjusted"
This is precisely the issue, it leads directly to thought policing, dystopian dictatorship, 1984, Brave New World, China's Social credit system and things like that. This is why it's such a deeply evil thing to do to want to force people to lie.
How on earth did you manager to fit Microsoft into this? Also, this outrage culture is exactly what everyone here including you practices as long as Trump is the guy on the other side. No proofs, no actual statements, just CNN soundbytes and orange man bad, impich nao. Remember you reap what you sow.
>How on earth did you manager to fit Microsoft into this
Good point. I intended it merely as emphasis to the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish point, but apparently it ended up being more of a red herring...? I'll take extra care the next time.
>Also, this outrage culture is exactly what everyone here including you
Don't worry, this forum isn't entirely a single-minded and single-channel tribe. Albeit let's not detract further with risky subjects, shall we? :-)
But he's a freethinker, and freethinkers necessarily exist outside the mainstream. So, despite not liking him, I also don't like this turn of events.
It does seem arbitrary to me that the same sexual encounter is classified as rape in Arizona and not rape in Virginia. I suppose we have to draw that line somewhere arbitrary. But I wonder if it was a mistake to classify what is called "statutory rape" as "rape" at all. We can make it illegal without calling it rape.
That said, to me, this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on. But then Stallman is not known for being picky about hills. People like him (or loathe him) because he's principled, and therefore no hill is too small.
He can continue to be a freethinker all his life, which is his right. What isn't though, is having unconditional support from two powerful industry organizations. They can choose their own values, same as him.
> That said, to me, this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on
I don't think he saw it as a hill worth dying on, just a random hill he happened to be shot on. It's part of a random scattering of thoughts he makes public.
Either way, I'm cancelling my FSF donations for caving into this witch hunt. It's long demise will be helmed by people that stand for nothing less they offend someone.
It's the problem now, but specifically this tendency of Stallman is why the FSF exists at all, and why there was a compiler and a complete, freely available Unix userspace already available for Linus to bundle with his kernel, and voila, free Unix.
It's also the reason we have an Open Source movement, that being the watered down and more corporately palatable version of Stallman's idealistic vision.
Yes, he's totally uncompromising, has no sense of pragmatic tradeoffs or weighing one thing against another or deciding what is a good hill to die on. That's not the way I think is best to live my life, and it's probably best that most people don't live theirs that way either. Still, there should be a place in the world for people like him to have the freedom to be able to create and run their own organization with their own ideals.
> It's also the reason we have an Open Source movement, that being the watered down and more corporately palatable version of Stallman's idealistic vision.
If you ever talked with Stallman, read his texts, listened to his talks, you'd know that in certain ways Stallman's views are much weaker than what most people think they are. He doesn't have any issue with corps taking over the FOSS world as long as it compiles on trisquel and comes with a free license.
That's why I'm glad that he's going away now. Hope we can get someone who actually will stand up against the issues that the FOSS world is facing now in his seat.
> Either way, I'm cancelling my FSF donations for caving into this witch hunt.
If the FSF experiences a drop in donations couldn't they interpret that as people trying to distance themselves with Stallman, and he's basically synonymous with the FSF?
The "turn of events" in this case is losing his job because he made the organisations associated with him look bad. And I think it's completely fair for them to kick him to the curb in this case. No one person too important to lose if they turn into a liability. And in this case, I think RMS was well past that point.
Something about Minsky that seems to have gotten lost: Minsky appears to have turned Epstein's girl down, according to Gregory Benford: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
RMS did a very stupid thing here, by attempting to defend his friend as though he had had sex with her he cemented that picture in the minds of whoever reads his (RMS's) screed without questioning whether or not the event took place in the first place. It is a pity that the deposition does not allow one to resolve this once and for all.
It speaks of her being directed to have sex with but fails to ask the follow up question (which I would think is very much material) of whether it actually happened in each of those cases. Pretty bad questioning.
Regardless of whether it was right to ditch Stallman as the president of the FSF, here's my "wishlist" for his successor (in case they don't revert it):
- Someone who is less of a hardliner: Stallman's dedication to free software is a good thing but his absolutist style of expressing it might have put a lot of people off who would otherwise not be opposed to the idea of free software
- Someone who understands the problems of free/open source software (contributors not getting paid, corporate exploitation, ...) and has progressive solutions for it
- Someone who everyone can (at least kinda) sympathize with and/or relate to: I believe Stallman generally has no bad intent but a lot of his mannerisms are just plain awkward or offensive to a lot of people. Normally that wouldn't matter but the president of the FSF (especially Stallman) is kinda "the face of free software". So showing that the world of free software is a progressive and inclusive space here might just benefit everyone.
We should still honor Stallman for what he did for free software (I mean he basically invented it) and we should IMO continue to welcome him in this space (maybe even as some kind of executive in the FSF because after all he's obviously not incompetent). But maybe he isn't the best person for the role of the president anymore these days.
> Someone who is less of a hardliner: [...] his absolutist style of expressing it might have put a lot of people off
I think this is two different issues.
I wouldn't mind a softer talker, but I would prefer for that person to be a hardliner and someone who would open our minds to alternatives in the openess direction.
There are too many "money talks"/"free market solves it all" people in the world, if the front-person of FSF is a mediator then it will grow in that direction, instead of making the world see more spectrum.
I agree with your second two points 100%, though not with the first at all.
I think that Stallman's hardliner stance, while it has scared away a lot of people, has also been a good thing in a lot of regards; if nothing else, it shows that there is a position to be had in the extreme copyleft.
Understandable. My line of thought was that free software could, in some places where it's not big yet, win in the long term if the FSF stopped judging devs/makers of non-free software. (And instead maybe acknowledged that it's hard to develop free software in that field under the current circumstances to raise awareness.)
In a bit of fairness, I actually emailed Stallman about this a couple years ago and he's a bit more nuanced if you press him on individual things.
For example, I asked him about an app that I was working on, where we were doing things with a BSD license (since the thing we released was proprietary but the core was open-source), and he suggested that we instead re-license it as GPL but with an proprietary exception for only our app.
There are so many judgements on both sides, both in these comments and in the articles on the subject that have been submitted, but very little quoting of what he said in context.
Where can I find what he said? Why is everyone talking about what he meant without quoting what he said so I can decide what makes sense for myself?
Vice has the full transcript and it's long, which is part of why people aren't quoting snippets. Quoting snippets is not better in this case than talking about what you think he meant.
BTW: I am not sure why this question is down voted. At least here in Europe this was not real news so it was an honest questions. The FSF site did not explain the why.
16 September 2019 (Resignation)
To the MIT community,
I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.
Richard Stallman
The pressure against him has been going for at least ten years, and his most recent comment was made last week. So yep, apparently they sleep on things for at least ten years.
So you're saying there's been pressure for him to resign for years? And that this incident is just one example of a long list of unacceptable behavior? Do you have any sources for that?
He may be talking about the blog post on Medium by Selam G.? The one where she launched a personal attack at him, publicly, because she was "too angry to work right now".
I’ve been around long enough to remember these things happening in real time: I didn’t show up to free software today and start opining based on what I read on Reddit.
Everyone involved in open source knew about Stallman. Whether or not we think his bad behavior outweighs his personal contributions depends largely on if our name is “Richard Stallman”.
> I didn’t show up to free software today and start opining based on what I read on Reddit.
Erm... I didn't suggest that you did? I suggested that the parent comment about sleeping on things may have been directed at the blog writer.
> Everyone involved in open source knew about Stallman. Whether or not we think his bad behavior outweighs his personal contributions depends largely on if our name is “Richard Stallman”.
This here, it reads as though you are asserting that pretty much only Richard Stallman himself thinks his personal contributions outweigh his behaviour, and pretty much everyone else in open source feels the opposite. Are you really making this bold of an assertion?
To be blunt, I’m not sure the FSF is worth having without someone as stubborn as RMS at the helm, but with any luck, they can still do a proper job of maintaining his legacy. Increasingly I find Stallman was right, and I hope he will continue to publicly do what he can to advance free software.
More information on‒what I guess‒is the relevant backstory (RMS making reprehensible statements related to the Epstein scandal) can be found (among other places) in this blog post [1] by Matthew Garrett (original source referenced in the post is [2]).
1. It totally ignores the fact that it's possible to be highly respectable for some things and not for other things. Stallman has always been a jerk, but he's also always been trying to fight the good fight. Washington had slaves, that doesn't mean we should hate him.
2. You don't get to call out people for indicating that men are better at some things, and then point out that women are better at some things. Either you're allowed to believe in differences based on sex or you aren't.
I've never been a big fan of Stallman because I think he's a little to far into the realm of zealot. However, he is good for society as a whole because, in general, he's fighting for the right things. I don't think it's right to condemn him, throw the baby out with the bath water, because he's an idiot about some things.
>Again, this mailing list has undergraduate students on it. It is likely some of them are “18 years old or 17”.
What a horribly asinine point. If you’re an undergraduate student and unable to deal with uncomfortable opinions, you are too immature to be a university student. The further infantilization of college students, and worse, college staff, never ceases to amaze me.
Is there an original source anywhere? Was this a private mailing list thread? I’d just like to see the content on its own not surrounded by a medium blog or vice commentary.
There is a mailing list thread that was copied and sent to VICE.
Note, the headline and article body of this post contain lies to make the story more clickable, but if you scroll to the bottom there is a widget that contains the 20 page mailing list thread. The other participants’ names besides RMS were redacted. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
Nearly the entire world considers 17 legal [1], including most of the United States. To deny there is a room for a conversation about age of consent being arbitrary seems… really strange.
The entire thing is odd. RMS is questioning the morality of the law and the people opposing him are quite literally, unironically, upset because they use the law to derive their morality[0]. More than that, their criticism is based on an intentional clickbait-tier misreading of what Stallman was saying. And after learning this, people are like "oh well, screw him anyway, he's a weirdo." This includes people like Neil McGovern, GNOME Executive Director, who used the opportunity to threaten that RMS leaves or GNOME leaves the FSF.
Living in a country where the age of consent is 16, the oddest thing I find in all of this is that people can hold a straight face while saying that sleeping with a 17 year old constitutes pedophilia but seem to completely ignore that their country tries 13 year olds as adults[1] when they deem it fitting.
Well, I'm now going to be following Stallman without the FSF around. His (admittedly) iconoclastic views are important, and I appreciate what he says about technology and privacy. His legal views are questionable, yes, but I don't accept the idea that he should be removed from the FSF.
I wonder why on Earth did RMS embark in such a dangerous discussion. In modern times talking about those topics is just like Wile E. Coyote throwing a dozen boomerangs at the roadrunner thinking he won't be hit back by some of them.
He should have thought carefully about that: no matter if one is right or wrong, talking about that stuff in public will expose an individual to remotely controllable public anger in a way that will harm all other good stuff he does through ad-hominem attacks ("he has such opinions about rape, therefore his software sucks as do his licensing model and his opinions on closed source").
I for one still think he's a kind of good extremist the IT world badly needs, I agree at least on principle with most of his ideas and recall listening to him at a conference then handshaking him about two decades ago.
Still... yeah, it was stupid from him to comment on such sensitive topics; this could harm the Free Software world in many ways, regardless of him being right or wrong, and probably someone will attempt to use that weapon.
I have no opinion on Stallman, he could very well be that awful person.
The twitter discussion[0] seemed to me to be very polarized and targeting rage with all the common traits of typical fake news/mass hysteria communication. Maybe it is just the way these things naturally come to daylight.
totally good faith dynamic there, calling it fake news/mass hysteria. great stuff man, real contribution to the conversation. G-d forbid other people be pissed about this.
Knowing how stubborn and aloof Richard tends to be, it is a huge surprise that this has happened at all, let alone so quickly. I can only imagine there was an immense amount of pressure from the board, partner projects, and sponsors.
Very unrelated issue - he resigned after the flamewars regarding PEP 572 (the addition of an assignment expression ':='). After it had gone on for a while, he finally used his BDFL authority to shut down debate and approve the PEP, and then resigned shortly after. In particular, he felt that the Python Code of Conduct's requirement for civility was being completely ignored in attacks on him in social media.
I'm surprised at the number of news headlines and comments saying that Stallman defended Epstein. He absolutely did not.
His entire point can be summed up as "if person A (Epstein) coerces a 17 year old girl into approaching and having sex with person B (Minsky), and does a hypothetically convincing job of it, is person B (Minsky) guilty of statutory rape / sexual assault?"
His argument is valid considering Guiffre never accused Minsky of sexual assault, and doubly valid considering there is at least one witness who said that while Guiffre approached them, Minsky did not have sex with her.
Even for the people saying that it IS statutory rape in a court of law (i.e. ignorance of her age doesn't matter to the court), please consider that Minsky isn't actually "guilty" because this hasn't been proven in said court of law.
It's funny how people flirt between law and objective morality depending on which further serves their argument.
Controlling the language is key to controlling the discussion, and as usual Stallman just wanted to clarify the language. He's used to dealing with a more rational, less public crowd, and didn't realize he was poking a bed of hot coals.
It's very sad to see such backlash and support of deplatformization of someone who has done so much for us over one cluster of comments. Even if you disagree with him, surely we can be allowed more than one mistake in the public eye before the platform we helped create is ripped from our hands. This is quite the authoritarian mindset and it worries me to find it in such prevalence here on Hacker News.
That this is being framed as a matter of free speech is preposterous.
Richard Stallman isn't some low-level engineer.
He runs one of the largest and most impactful open source foundations in the world.
The question isn't whether it's ok to have these kinds of discussions.
Stallman's questions were, to my mind, obtuse and silly, and a 74 year-old shouldn't need those things explained to him, but some people do.
The important question is this: is somebody who is this obtuse about rape victims and the difficulties that women face in the workforce fit to lead one of the biggest and most impactful open source organizations in the world?
The answer to that is clearly no.
I, as many others, never personally liked Dr. Stallman and didn’t agreed with many of his views.
That being said, the way that that happened is absolutely terrifying. Fact, that people rather crucify someone instead of argue, explain or prove him wrong is the sign of our times.
End of free speech is here. It’s free only if it doesn’t offend group powerful enough to destroy you, and it’s narrowing every single day. We’ve seen many instances of this happening both on personal, unpopular views and gossips and false accusations.
Want to keep your career? Best you can do is to steer out of the social media and don’t share your thoughts with anyone. Not only controversial ones, because what might not be controversial now, might be controversial in 10 years, and you will suffer because of it.
There have always been consequences to speech. Before social media, the traditional media would be the method of choice of stirring up people into a mob demanding resignations. It's not new.
What is new, is that it is no longer a power centralized to owners of traditional media. It is now distributed, and thanks to Twitter specifically, in a way that promotes "tyrranny by the mob" which the founding fathers themselves abhorred.
This isn't the death of free speech. Instead, view it as tech kicking itself in the balls because the people making software didn't understand how humans would leverage it at a society level scale.
It's why many of us are working of federated but social public forms of media, like the 90s and early 2000's, because that worked at scale without a "tyrranny of the mob".
All that being said, it is hard to be all "free speech is over" doom-sayer when the person in question has repeatedly (and we're talking decades) said creepy things that cumulatively sets up a pattern of behavior. This isn't Joe Shmoe hopping onto the internet the first time and losing his job. It's disingenuous to try to spin this event that way.
> All that being said, it is hard to be all "free speech is over" doom-sayer when the person in question has repeatedly (and we're talking decades) said creepy things that cumulatively sets up a pattern of behavior. This isn't Joe Shmoe hopping onto the internet the first time and losing his job. It's disingenuous to try to spin this event that way.
I think that’s the point here. RMS was always a creep who had very odd opinions on many different topics. I never liked the man nor thought much about his opinions and yet I was using software he created. He is creep, but he was tolerated.
I find 2 perspectives here. First is - am I the creep right now who is being tolerated. Maybe? I don’t know 2050 standards. Maybe I am and will be removed because I shown 2050 Toxic Behavior for years, which might be criticizing social media. No idea.
Second is - RMS is a human being. Not every one of us is pristine human being nor have luxury of being pristine and perfectly moral. Biology and past traumas do their thing. As far as I know, there aren’t any crimes he committed and if there were, he should be properly sentenced. If he was tolerated for past 30 years, shouldn’t it be more in sense of “ok dude, your time is up, here are your accolades, pack your stuff and have fun” instead of having witch hunt bringing every single piece of dirt people can find? Nah, that wouldn’t make sense, right?
Free speech is not all over, because I’m typing this right now. I am aware, though, that criticizing RMS “process” might bring consequences to my life if the mob decides to target me. If this process progresses we’ll end up in the state where I won’t discuss anything online and keep all my knowledge and experience for myself. And there was a time in history where life was just like that.
You really do need to be extra careful about what you write, because everything gets archived forever. You're not only being judged against today's norms and taboos but against the unknown taboos of years from now. Things that were once no big deal are career-ending today. Things that are no big deal today may be career-ending tomorrow. I have no idea what's going to be politically correct in 2039. Similarly, if some of the things I said and thought 20 years ago were documented and searchable, I'd never be able to get a job today. Society's standards shift, but its memory doesn't.
Your best bet is to only ever express entirely uncontroversial vanilla opinions and hope even that is still acceptable in the decades to come.
If you truly feel this way, you can put money where your mouth is and do actions to remove your very own words from the digital world (because you own the copyright to them if in the US, under the GDPR in the EU).
Alternatively, you can support dismantling tools that build outrage mobs (Twitter) and be a proponent of good faith arguments with conduct becoming of earnest debate. Preventing the fearful future.
I hope you can see why I think lazily lamenting some imagined dystopic future makes me sincerely question the actual genuineness of the underlying fear, and the lack of evidence makes me question the rigor with which it was dreamed up.
“If you actively harass women at work for literally 30 years and do not stop any of the many, many times people to stop, and then also justify the sexual abuse of children as your job tries to distance itself from it’s collaboration with a know pedophile you might lose your job” doesn’t seem like it’s going to be a situation that will ever be relevant to my life, thank.
I too am very disturbed by the historic records of Stallman's bad behavior. Was he ever forced to take sensitivity training or anything, or did everyone just ignore it?
I don’t know why this is being downvoted: it is actually true. I know it sounds ridiculous, but that is because tolerating his behavior for this long was ridiculous.
Do you really think he was canned because of this one incident? There are years of bad behavior here.
"We will, as always, be treated to much examination of the precise nature and mass of the last straw, with observations that it would not by itself be sufficient to cause spinal damage in camels, and is therefore utterly harmless."
RMS is a synonym for semantic pedantry and exploring hypotheticals. In such a high-profile position as he has, he should have learned by now when it is the right time to apply those skill and when not to.
I'm frankly surprised that his arguments haven't cost him his position earlier.
Clearly you don't have the full picture. This isn't about a difference of views; it's about a long-standing pattern of inappropriate behavior, including (but not limited to) overtly and deliberately staring at women's breasts in a professional context. There's no innocuous explanation here; this isn't an isolated mistake.
Many people (and Richard too[1]) have wondered if he is somewhat on the autistic spectrum. An "innocuous" partial disability would cause poor social interactions, and would lead to difficultly learning social nuances.
Of course he could also just be socially inept (i.e. no excuse for failing to learn good behaviour) and he clearly isn't disabled (anyone actually dealing with autism is doing life in hard mode).
Let's assume he's on the spectrum for the sake of argument. If you miss some indirect signals, that's one thing - but when you're explicitly told specific behaviors are inappropriate, and you keep doing them anyway, being on the spectrum is not a defense.
This seems like a false positive for the defence system of the society. When you don't have it, I mean, when a behaviour or opinion is not crucified worse things happen(angry mobs, oppression of groups etc.).
Recently I have been reading Sapiens, it the book Homo Sapiens is singled out about its ability to function in groups of up to 150 people. Other humanoids were not able to do that.
I think, however, that discussing thigs on Twitter/Reddit is the same thing as discussing things with thousands and even millions of people that are gathered in a single place. Our species does have the tools to make this possible(the internet) but lacks methods to make it functional. The only thing we have is to detect an idea that somewhat sounds band and oppress it before bad things happen. That way we have some wrongfully vilified people but at the same time, we are able to stop the creation of a group of extremists(some people will not understand the discussion, mistook it for a validation of their sick ideas and if no vilification happens they will take action).
Anyway, that's why we need privacy. We should be able to discuss things in small enough groups without fear of being vilified, in a group with no outsiders we would know if someone is up to something bad or and take an appropriate action instead of overreacting and mislabeling. High-quality public discussions are beyond our capability.
Or be a comedian. Satire is practically immune. It’s hard to attack someone for something when they say something other than what they’re really talking about.
That's not new though, is it? Comedy has often created push back from groups that feel like you can make jokes, but not about them. The new part seems to be that it's very public and, if you witness it live, seems very powerful. Before Twitter, you wouldn't see/hear about the angry letters sent to TV stations or newspapers, unless they were so numerous that the executives made a decision to give in to their demands.
If your views are pro voluntary pedophilia I think maybe you should suffer. That's a pretty ageless thing in regards of people not being OK with it, and that shouldn't be a shock to you.
The government isn't telling him that he can't share these views, so take your free speech bullshit somewhere else. You're free to say things, and we as a society are free to show you the fucking door. He shared his awful views (and was an active abuser) for decades, and finally we're showing him the door.
The Internet doesn't forget, so everyone can be branded mysogynist/mysandry/pedophile/etc.. just by making mistakes or having taken quotes out of context. People have limited attention and the media profits on showing the ugliness of others. This is not how it should be but I don't know how to fix that...
The internet _does_ forget though. Brendan Eich was forced out of Mozilla, a project he co-founded, and now nobody seems to bat an eye at him being at Brave.
In my original post, 'making mistakes' was put before 'out of context', the Internet doesn't allow anyone to have a 2nd chance of doing anything. Once you are branded as something, it will stuck with you forever, erasing any previous achievement or contribution you have done. And I don't like that.
To get a second chance you need to realize what you did wrong and apologize (at least that the standard I set for kids). Until that I assume he's still just as bad as when he made the "mistake.
He has had hundreds of chances. He was first called out ten years ago. It took a really long time for him to convince this many people that he was a pox upon our industry. I respect the level of effort and commitment to being actively destructive to the community that he put in to the project.
Yeah, his comments were absolutely disgusting. People here are acting like the media is railroading him. No, he was quite literally defending child rape.
I've seen some online cheering Stallman's resignation from MIT. I suspect they'll also be cheering about this resignation as well.
But this is nothing to cheer about.
Regardless of what low regard the man might be held as a person, he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
It sets a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship on a topic that really requires the disinfecting power of sunshine.
This strengthens the power of those who have no use for scientific inquiry and are more interested in inquisition.
I too, am a fan of Stallman's accomplishments and I am sad that debate on this topic essentially can't happen.
That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and problematic.
Legally, sex with underaged people is rape regardless of consent. Morally, that stance really is justified in the most common circumstance - when the non-underaged person has more power and experience than the underaged person. In the case under discussion, you have that in spades, double spades.
The sad thing is that individuals interested in freedom, who make serious contributions to some things called free, don't notice that the massive imbalances of wealth today have produced a situation where simple "free choice" is made a mockery of.
And yeah, the thing about inquisition atmosphere, imo, is that it doesn't reveal the rot behind all the "mere" abuse of power.
He seems to have expressed a couple distinct arguments:
1. It isn't pedophilia if the person is sexually mature. Pedophilia is sex with prepubescent children.
2. He draws a distinction between statutory rape (can't legally say yes according to the law, but otherwise willing and sexually mature) and forcible rape (when someone says no). He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
I agree with you that in the Epstein case you have a situation with a dramatic power imbalance. Stallman seems to consider Epstein a serial rapist (possibly for that fact?). He seems to be more pushing back on the pedophilia accusations.
Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women (including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United States. This whole aspect of the conversation seems to have melted away in the various other controversies.
> Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women (including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United States.
I agree that the reporting silence on this aspect of the case is odd. The federal prosecutor who worked out Epstein's plea deal (Alexander Acosta) appears to have told the press that the deal was done because he was told "Epstein belonged to intelligence". This was widely reported in July (https://www.google.com/search?q=acosta+epstein+intelligence), and then this revelation was almost completely dropped when Acosta resigned from his position as Secretary of Labor due to fallout from his involvement with the plea deal.
I'll note though that Acosta did not explicitly claim that Epstein was working for the US intelligence services...
> making it hard to accept your view that "it really looks like" that's the case
I didn't use those words, the parent poster did.
Personally, I think the possibility that Epstein was working for a government agency (domestic or foreign) merits further investigation, but is far from a certainty.
I agree that Acosta might have been lying. But if this is the case, I find it doubly odd that there has been so little follow up reporting.
Suppose Acosta started the lie, and refuses to talk about it. What would the follow-up reporting look like?
"I contacted 16 US intelligence agencies. 9 of them denied that Epstein worked for them, and the rest would neither confirm or deny that Epstein worked for them."?
Would you have seen that sort of reporting? Would it be convincing? How many relevant intelligence agencies are there in the US?
I agree that asking US intelligence agencies probably wouldn't produce anything worth reporting. I also agree that there is an asymmetry here, and that it would be very difficult to prove that he was not working for an intelligence agency.
The reporting I'd like to see would probably focus on finance and connections. How did Epstein make his money? Who were his clients? What did his business associates know about the sexual allegations? Who does Acosta claim told him? What were Epstein's internal motives?
I haven't seen any major news outlets focussing on these aspects. The simple explanation is that they fear that any explanation of Epstein other than "he's a monster" would reflect badly on them to the public. The more conspiratorial explanation is that the answers would reflect badly on people who have power over them.
But answering your questions: Yes, I probably would have seen that reporting if it existed; No, it wouldn't be convincing; I don't think the number of agencies matters, the connections he does have seem to lead to the CIA or Mossad.
You ask "What did his business associates know about the sexual allegations?"
The only known business associate is Wexner. He has declined to comment, says Bloomberg.
You ask "Who does Acosta claim told him?" He has declined to comment. Eg, the Miami Herald at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html says "Acosta did not respond to numerous requests for an interview or answer queries through email."
"The simple explanation" is that it was hidden well, protected by powerful people, and had not yet been figured out.
I have no doubt that "the answers would reflect badly on people who have power over them". That's how it has been squelched or diminished until now.
Other than the one comment, is there any evidence that an intelligence agency is really involved? Why can't it be a bunch of sexually abusive plutocrats supporting each other with their connections of power? Why can't the reference to "intelligence" be a convenient cover?
If it were the CIA or Mossad, do you not think that, perhaps, some time in the last 20 years they might have told him to tone down as he's going to get caught, and destroy their decades-long effort?
What are the connections between Mossad and Acosta? Any Epstein connections wouldn't affect the federal prosecutors' office, yet it was they who gave Epstein such lenient terms.
If Julie Brown, the investigative reporter who worked on the story for a long time for the Miami Herald, had been able to figure out any of these questions, do you think she would have reported it?
> He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
I understand what RMS is trying to say, but this strikes me as an incredibly weak argument. All laws are arbitrary, but pointing that out isn't a meaningful defense of someone who broke one.
It's like contesting a parking ticket by saying "well if parking had been allowed on that street at that time then I wouldn't have done anything wrong."
While I don't know about this case, a common problem with people arguing right/wrong and legal/illegal is that one side picks right/wrong and the other picks legal/illegal and they talk past each other. If the law happens to agree with somebody's opinion, they'll use that to justify that they're "right" and if it doesn't, they'll use some higher moral standard and disregard the law.
Sometimes it's obvious which the sensible choice to make is. If you're arguing whether the GPL allows linking to a proprietary library or not, then it's the law that's more important. But if you're arguing if sex with children is OK then it's some higher moral standard that's important and appeals to the law are essentially appeals to popular opinion as support of some moral standard.
Luckily, people usually agree on what the law means, so they just have to make sure they're arguing about the same point that their opponent is actually making.
That is a poor analogy, because if you can't park where you want that is a moderate inconvenience at the very worst. If you find yourself "in love" with a 17-and-a-half-year-old, it's not so easy as finding another spot.
The point of an analogy is to be similar in some single illustrative way, not to be similar in all ways. If someone finds themselves "in love" then they could make some kind of argument based on that, but it wouldn't make the "but it would be legal somewhere else" argument any more compelling.
Thank you for making this point. It's somehow been mostly lost in the noise of this thread that the main reason RMS's comments are so unacceptable is because he gave this defense (theoretical or not) of someone accused of having sex with a child trafficking victim. Not because he happens to have socially unacceptable opinions about certain corner cases in consent laws. Fortunately in this case, there's a very very bright line, and RMS was way over it.
I mean, his defense was of Minsky, not Epstein. RMS believes that Minsky likely wasn't aware of of either her age nor the coercion so Minsky could hardly be blamed for not knowing. I haven't followed this too closely (except on HN) but I think that incident also predated Epstein's first trial (conviction?).
I suspect (and really really hope) RMS wouldn't have such a defense for Epstein himself.
I'm not going to argue one way or the other. But for those saying legally it's one way or the other.
In Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2]. Of course a judge can find that the child or their legal representative not having been capable of giving consent in which case it's still considered child abuse.
Western societies themselves have such vastly different legal definitions of consent. To be honest I find germanies version to be the weirdest I've seen although I don't know much about the other european countries.
> Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2].
It is not.
The general legal age of consent in German is 16 years. § 182 (3)
The special legal age is 14 and it's only legal if the other party is under 21.
Even then there are a lot of further exemptions that would make sex with a minor illegal.
Prostitution and/or pornography involving minors is always illegal.
In Germany, having sex with someone in the 14-15 range can be illegal if the other party is above the age of 21.
Relevant passage in German, from the parent's link:
"Über die Vorschriften des § 182 StGB Abs. 1 und 2 (Zwangslage, Entgelt) bezüglich des Schutzalters 18 Jahre hinaus, die auch für unter 16-jährige Opfer gelten, können sexuelle Handlungen von Erwachsenen, die über 21 Jahre alt sind, mit 14- und 15-jährigen Jugendlichen nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB bestraft werden, falls ein gesetzlicher Vertreter des Jugendlichen Strafantrag stellt und im Strafverfahren das Gericht feststellt, dass der Erwachsene eine – etwa mit Hilfe eines Sachverständigen – festzustellende „fehlende Fähigkeit zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung“ des Jugendlichen ausgenutzt hat. Der Bundesgerichtshof hat 1996 festgestellt, dass der bloße Hinweis auf das Alter der 14- oder 15-jährigen Person für eine Verurteilung des erwachsenen Beschuldigten nicht ausreicht."
(emphasis mine)
To summarize: Having (consensual, of course) sex with a 14 year old is always legal in Germany if you're under the age of 21 and not a teacher or some such, and can be illegal if you're over that.
yes, dejure it can be legal (not it is legal) for a 21 year old to have sex with a 14-15 year old, defacto it isn't. The BGH decision merely states that for the range 14-15 the court has to look at the maturity of the victim on a case by case basis, because that's what the law says.
That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".
The point of this is not, say the lawmakers (as can be read in the Referentenentwürfe), to give a card blanche to adults to have sex with 14-15yos, but account for the very rare case a 14-15yo actually has a far above average developmental maturity, to the point where a special protection by law is no longer necessary, thus making the age of consent less arbitrary and closer related to the actual state of development of an individual.
> yes, dejure it can be legal (not it is legal) for a 21 year old to have sex with a 14-15 year old, defacto it isn't. The BGH decision merely states that for the range 14-15 the court has to look at the maturity of the victim on a case by case basis, because that's what the law says.
> That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".
The wikipedia link directly contradicts you:
"Dieser Rückgang wird in der juristischen Literatur nicht etwa so erklärt, dass die Zahl der Sexualkontakte Erwachsener mit Jugendlichen zurückgegangen sei, sondern dass solche Kontakte gegenwärtig gesellschaftlich weitgehend toleriert werden und Erziehungsberechtigte nur noch selten Strafanträge stellen.[6] Verschiedene Studien rechnen damit, dass nur jede hundertste bis zweihundertste sexuelle Beziehung einer über 21-jährigen Person mit einer 14- bis 15-jährigen Person zu einer Anzeige nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB (in aktueller Fassung) führt.[5]"
From everything I've read, the number of convictions following complaints by parents seem to be pretty rare. Unless we have actual numbers on that however, the discussion is rather pointless.
This is not a discussion about legality or facts. The fact is that a 18-old ex-sex trafficked girl approached Minsky and he turned her down.
There is no legal case here for that. And that's what Stallman was saying also. There was no rape.
He draws a distinction between statutory rape (can't legally say yes according to the law, but otherwise willing and sexually mature) and forcible rape (when someone says no). He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
One can draw a distinction between rape by physical force and rape by coercion, manipulation and deception - but it's kind of undesirable to push any kind of line that a lack of force makes this a automatically a different kind of crime. For example, sex with police officer or prison guard when someone is in custody is in many jurisdictions automatically considered to be rape because the circumstances mean a person can't really consent - and that's entirely logical. In this sense, "statutory rape" and forcible rape aren't entirely different.
Maybe one might find situations where under-aged sex isn't rape by manipulation - where you can argue consent could reasonably given (an eighteen year old with sixteen year in the same High school is hard to argue against). But the Epstein situation is clearly the wrong place to look for this.
People's opinions and what they say have weight and actually affect people (not to mention they affect people's actions). He isn't defending pineapple on pizza, he's defending the victimization of women.
Whether or not this case crosses it there clearly is a line where expressing an opinion isn't okay. If he was spouting off racist stuff you would have very few people defending him being fired.
Being racist goes beyond having an opinion. I’m talking about what is clearly a much more limited viewpoint, about a specific situation. Racism is deeply held, applies (by definition) incredibly broadly, and is reasonably expected to affect how you treat coworkers.
By "having an incorrect opinion" I'll assume you mean "having and voicing an incorrect opinion."
Yes. There are laws against workplace harassment. Harassment may include repeated voicing of discriminatory opinions. The harasser may be fired to prevent the workplace from being a 'hostile environment'.
Even when the law does not require action, someone may be fired even after a single conversation with incorrect opinions (and I mean 'incorrect' in the factual sense here). Take Jimmy Snyder, a.k.a. "Jimmy the Greek". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Snyder_(sports_commentat... .
> On January 16, 1988, Snyder was fired by the CBS network (where he had been a regular on NFL Today since 1976) after making several questionable comments about African Americans during a lunchtime interview on January 15, 1988 with Ed Hotaling ...
More directly, if it's the 1950s and I call my stridently anti-Soviet Union boss "a pinko Commie" to his face, that's voicing an incorrect opinion -- and I might easily be fired for it. (It's not hard to come up with modern-day examples, but I felt it best to use phrases which no longer have the emotional power they once did.)
None of these apply to what happened with Stallman. I instead wanted to address your broader topic of being fired for expressing an opinion.
>None of these apply to what happened with Stallman
That’s the point. If it were harassment, false accusation of a colleague, etc, it would not be merely expressing a bad opinion. But as you say, none of those apply.
And I think it’s clear I was not raising an issue of what is legal, but of what is right and just, and desirable for a university, for a workplace, for a society.
I gave two examples, one real ("Jimmy the Greek"), and one hypothetical ("pinko Commie"). Do you really want to get into a discussion of how it was not "right and just" to fire Jimmy the Greek for his racist comments?
To defend Minsky and Prince Andrew, there’s no evidence they knew she was underage. She also appeared in a photo with Andrew and Ghisline Maxwell. Perhaps he knew she was underage but for a member of royalty to fly to a private island and have underage sex with 8+ girls at once is a serious allegation which is what she claimed. Maybe it’s true but at least one of the accused by her (the famous lawyer involved) has claimed to have evidence that she is lying — or more precisely, exaggerating her story.
My ex-girlfriend dated Prince Andrew (she was in her late 20s). I’ve been around some of these people in South Florida and LA. A lot of allegedly good people will ignore red flags but people openly targeting underage girls seems to be isolated to only one or two principals.
Of course, all of this is wrong —- even this concept of pleasure parties where young (over 18) girls are brought to billionaire parties often by younger guys. Turning regular girls into “sugar babies” or prostitutes is a major problem.
> Maybe it’s true but at least one of the accused by her (the famous lawyer involved) has claimed to have evidence that she is lying — or more precisely, exaggerating her story.
Ah, Dershowitz. The one who says, yes, he got a massage at Epstein's Palm Beach place, but it was from a 52-year-old woman named Olga and he kept his pants on the whole time.
I'm sure we'll see his exculpatory evidence any day now.
> Legally, sex with underaged people is rape regardless of consent
Yes and no. With a 17 year old, in some jurisdictions, it's rape in such and such degree, but in other jurisdictions, it's a separate crime, and in other jurisdictions it's not a crime at all. I think the stronger argument is that it's illegal/immoral, rather than getting stuck on a single word.
So if I have sex with a consenting 14-17 year old on vacation (the actual legal ages of consent in Europe) people in USA can just call it rape/sexual assault?
Stallman has a point, even though he should've steered clear of this by 100 miles. People who don't travel internationally probably have a huge blind spot on this issue...
Yes, in fact, federal law makes it a crime for Americans to go to a foreign country and have sex that would be legal in that country, even Western European countries with typical laws. It's considered "sex tourism"
> a situation where simple "free choice" is made a mockery of.
I'm not so sure. "Free choice" today as defined by those on the left is "free to make choices independent of constraints imposed by personal capacity or personal resources", whereas it has historically been interpreted as "free to make choices independent of constraints imposed by other humans".
The problem with the former definition of free choice is that it requires encroaching on the latter definition of free choice.
If you have two people that are equally poor, both are equal in terms of having free choice under both definitions.
If one of those people becomes wealthy, they continue to be equal under the latter definition of free choice, but are unequal under the former definition even though nothing has changed in the circumstances of the one that became neither richer nor poorer than he was previously.
>That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and problematic.
So you have the default opinion anyone in our society will have. I'm interested in what the heretic has to say why we are wrong.
However with what has happened to Stallman I doubt I ever will. A shame because something has gone hugely wrong when half of all children are thinking of suicide.
Er, sorry, no. A public mailing list is not the correct venue for this discussion. Supposing as you do that society currently holds the wrong opinion on "does sex with minors constitute sexual assault?", the right answer is unlikely to be hashed out on a MIT list for CS activities.
You also lend Stallman more weight than he deserves. His resignation will go unnoticed by all outside of our specific tech sphere and certainly will not "set a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship" (???).
Should we cheer his resignation? It's undoubtedly a sad moment for him and his supporters, but Stallman's behavior quite likely has held back the FSF for some time. He's an ideologue, not a leader.
1. His post was not an out of context rant on an unrelated school mailing list. He was criticizing the words used by MIT students in connection with a protest at MIT, and that mentioned his ex-colleague. The MIT students posted this in the first instance, and it was a direct response to them. It seems to me like an appropriate forum.
2. Stallman's argument was simply to call a spade a spade, and not a defense of Epstein or Minsky. If you told 10 people (each unaware of any of the facts alleged) that Minsky sexually assaulted a girl, and then asked them to describe what they imagine occurred after hearing he sexually assaulted some, many might assume he violently assaulted someone. The degree of differences in guesses that you might receive makes the word functionally prone to tarnishing someone with a reputation for a different crime than the one they committed.
Stallman therefore asked for the incident to be described in unambiguous terms; for example, that Minsky had sex with a sex trafficked 17-year old 50 years his junior on Epstein's island. That does not mean he defends that scenario -- you can still view it as reprehensible, and condemn it, but at least you are not engaging in "accusation inflation", where you are condemning someone for a potentially worse crime than they committed.
3. I agree that Stallman is unnoticed outside this sphere, but this is part of a continued trend of threatening people's reputations and livelihoods for stating an opinion. I created a throwaway for the first time ever simply for this comment (which I think is relatively benign), so yes, I think this trend will continue to lead to self-censorship.
I think you should be aware that all non-consensual sex is sexual assault, and all sexual assault is violence. Sexual assaulters have committed violent crime.
How old were you when you first had sex? How old was your partner?
If you were both under the age of consent, as is often the case, in many jurisdictions [0], neither of you were able to give consent, and your sex act was technically non-consensual on both sides. This is not just theoretical -- there are many cases of prosecutors charging consensual underage couples with statutory rape, or with child pornography charges for sexting a picture of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend, and often using these laws in unjust ways (e.g. charging only the black boyfriend with statutory rape, but not equally charging the white girlfriend).
Let's assume you and your first love grew up in California, had sex for the first time just days prior to your 18 birthdays (when you both became legal), and are now 30 and have been happily married for 10-years. By your definition, you both committed violent sexual assault, and I'd be correct to go around your workplace saying things like "oh zzzeek? you know he's committed violent sexual assault. Some sort of rape. I don't know the details, but just wanted you to know."
This is a contrived example, and I'm in no way equating this with Minsky or Epstein. I'm not defending either of their actions whatsoever. But I think that Stallman is correct that using words in this type of manner, deliberately ignoring such qualitative differences in degrees, is unfair. It doesn't matter what the legal or dictionary definition might be -- it's creating a misleading impression in someone else's mind as to what you are guilty of, rather than simply stating in clear terms what you did and letting that person decide for themselves how culpable or abhorrent you are.
> If you were both under the age of consent, as is often the case, in many jurisdictions [0], neither of you were able to give consent, and your sex act was technically non-consensual on both sides. This is not just theoretical -- there are many cases of prosecutors charging consensual underage couples with statutory rape, or with child pornography charges for sexting a picture of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend, and often using these laws in unjust ways (e.g. charging only the black boyfriend with statutory rape, but not equally charging the white girlfriend).
> Let's assume you and your first love grew up in California, had sex for the first time just days prior to your 18 birthdays (when you both became legal), and are now 30 and have been happily married for 10-years. By your definition, you both committed violent sexual assault, and I'd be correct to go around your workplace saying things like "oh zzzeek? you know he's committed violent sexual assault. Some sort of rape. I don't know the details, but just wanted you to know."
Minsky was not even close to the age of the victim, though. You're creating a false equivalence, and you're even stating this yourself at the last paragraph, so why even talk about these things?
He's not creating an equivalence at all, though. He's constructed that scenario as a direct counterargument to this...
> I think you should be aware that all non-consensual sex is sexual assault, and all sexual assault is violence. Sexual assaulters have committed violent crime.
That definition isn’t so cut and dry (different depending on jurisdiction). Violent crimes frequently depend on use of physical force or threat of physical force.
... No? Well, at the very least Stallman wrote that he doesn't think 'sexual assault' is a meaningful term. He uses the wrong (by which I mean, not the legal) definition for 'sexual assault' and implies that there are no other definitions by rejecting the idea that that phrase can be used in an accusation.
It's funny that Stallman is just being Stallman but since the context is suddenly around a word people are sensitive to, it's somehow suddenly not appropriate behavior.
He is just trying to create public conversation about clarification of the term "sexual assault" when it comes to murky areas of consent. If it came out tomorrow that Minsky indeed raped an underage child, Stallman wouldn't deny the truth. The truth is all he's after.
Then it would be nice if he used the standard legal definition of "sexual assault" rather than use his own definition.
34 U.S. Code § 12291 (29) - "The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27 . It does not require 'force or violence', as Stallman implies.
Stallman stated: "Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the
criticism."
How is "sexual assault" not the specific term for sex with a coerced minor? Where is the moral vagueness in the accusation?
>> Where is the moral vagueness in the accusation?
The legal definition is wide enough to encompass a broad range of acts that people have differing moral intuitions about (even if they are all bad acts, some are markedly more heinous in a lot of people's minds). That leads to moral vagueness. Pointing to a legal definition doesn't change that.
If I went around calling you a killer, because you kill insects, or a criminal, because you had an alcoholic drink when underage, or a producer of child pornography, because you sexted your girlfriend a photo of yourself when you were 17, and then pointed to a dictionary or legal definition to show that I was technically correct, would you not still object that I'm using terms that are overly vague as to the morality of what you have done?
By that logic, every law leads to moral vagueness. What's "child abuse"? If you spank your child, in some jurisdictions that's fine. In others it's illegal. For all I know, there may be some where it's okay so long as you don't leave bruises. Does that prevent us from making justified accustations of child abuse?
What's spousal rape? In some jurisdictions there is no such crime. In others it is a crime.
What's copyright infringement? Again, the details differ by jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions recognize different fair use or fair dealing considerations, and have different lengths of time for copyright protection.
> calling you a killer, because you kill insects
If I killed someone, and you call me a killer because of that, by pointing to the dictionary and legal definitions, can my friends defend me by saying that the definition is overly vague?
FWIW, I am a killer of insects - Killer is a not-uncommon nickname, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_(nickname) - I am a criminal because I've been ticketed several times for breaking traffic laws, I believe there is a strong argument against defining sexting as the production of child pornography, similar to the argument allowing some minors to have sex with adults of similar age.
I do not believe there is a strong argument in saying that sex with someone who is unable to grant consent is not sexual abuse.
> What's "child abuse"? If you spank your child, in some jurisdictions that's fine. In others it's illegal. For all I know, there may be some where it's okay so long as you don't leave bruises. Does that prevent us from making justified accustations of child abuse?
How does it not? I was abused as a child, physically and psychologically tormented and coerced into taking drugs and participating in weird religious things I wanted no part of, and many people I've encountered, including my own mother, don't view what I've been through as abuse. I consider it child abuse but even the multitude of police who visited my dwellings growing up in rural Louisiana sided with my abusers.
This is an example of the independence and often disparity between objective morality and law. Law wants to emulate morality, but it never will. And thus we cannot use law as a roadmap for morality. That is what people are doing in this case, clinging to the arbitrary laws defined in their section of the earth instead of only making safe moral assumptions based on scientific inquiry.
Stallman has just lost a position that he has spent his whole life working towards in a misplaced attempt to play the devil's advocate for a friend whom he has trouble imagining a dark side of. For what, so we can be morally vindicated? After everything which Stallman has helped give us? What kind of purist authoritarian hyper-reactive world are we living in? Without Stallman the two of us wouldn't even be able to have this discussion.
That's all fine and good, but Stallman argued that it was absolutely wrong to use "sexual abuse" in an accusation, not morally wrong.
Stallman's position appears to be that you absolutely cannot call what happened to you "child abuse."
Stallman doesn't seem willing to learn what others mean by "sexual assault" before making up his own definition and claiming that's the definition they were using.
Stallman has also spent his adult life as a sexual creep. This is an open secret. Your moral calculus appears to be that people are free to creep on others so long as the good they do outweighs the creep, and Stallman's good means he can be as creepy as he wants to, with no direct consequences?
If after 30 years the free software movement can't survive and thrive without Stallman then the movement has failed. The indirect consequences include all the people who left or never joined the movement because of his creepiness. Is that in your calculus?
Stallman gave the wrong definition of "sexual assault".
He chastised people for using the wrong phrase.
Legally speaking, it's the right phrase.
If the argument is really about "objective morality" and "absolutes" then those cannot be decided, so your interpretation of Stallman's text would also have Stallman object to calling Epstein a pedophile - something he rejects. Therefore your interpretation must be wrong.
Are you paying any attention to any of the cited claims in the last few days? It's not like these deep dark secrets. Searching HN for "Stallman creep", for example, finds:
"There are many valid criticisms of Richard Stallman: ... he has creeped out some women by making passes at them (or so they tell me). - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2327849 (2011)
I also know a woman who worked down the hall from Stallman, and she found him to be a creep this way.
> He flirts with anyone who is female, even if they are underage. He is creepy in person, in a way that I cannot adequately describe. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he kept women out of open source and free software, and many of his ideas stayed even after he left.
> I remember being walked around campus by an upperclassman getting advice during my freshman year at MIT. "Look at all the plants in her office," referring to a professor. "All the women CSAIL professors keep massive amounts of foliage" s/he said. "Stallman really hates plants."
Coercion is one thing, but Stallman is suggesting that, if it were the case that there was no coercion, then the age alone of the person does not make it sexual assault considering the globally varying age of consent. Stallman is understandingly quick to assume there was no coercion given his past with Minsky but was not suggesting that we do not give the case due process. He was just advocating stricter language around the issue.
I believe I understand what Stallman suggests. I'm saying that it has no merit.
Do you believe it has any merit? His emails suggest that he doesn't have an idea of what the existing laws regarding consent actually is - even the ones which are not ambiguous.
> considering the globally varying age of consent
That's why it must be a merit-less argument. 1) It's a distraction because age-of-consent isn't the issue here, it's the inability of minor coerced into sex work to give consent, and 2) there are regional differences in just about every crime, so if Stallman's argument has merit then it means almost no laws are moral, so talking about the morality of laws isn't that meaningful in the first place.
> He was just advocating stricter language around the issue.
He did not demonstrate that the term was used incorrectly for this case.
He made up his own definition, which requires 'force or violence', then asserted that it is "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" ... when people are using the term correctly, in its strict legal definition.
Why do you think the use of "sexual assault" for this case is not the correct strict language?
BTW, Stallman doesn't seem to know that "no coercion given his past with Minsky" may be irrelevant to the question of if sexual assault occurred. Some sexual assault laws have strict liability. If 73-year-old Prof. X has sex with a seemingly willing person under the age of consent, with no coercion on X's part, then it doesn't matter if X truly believes the underage person is of the age of consent. In most US jurisdiction, "I honestly thought she was old enough" is not a way to avoid a statutory rape conviction.
For Stallman's argument about coercion to be effective, he needs either 1) to demonstrate that the the laws regarding the Minsky situation require knowledge on Minsky's part that the sex was coerced - and I don't know the relevant laws, or 2) present a strong argument for why strict liability is wrong for that case. He didn't.
I assert it's because he didn't know the basic issues on the topic, but is only arguing what he feels should be the case. Which is not a good basis for complaining that others are being insufficiently strict in their language.
(BTW, why does at 73-year old Minsky think that a young woman wants to have sex with him? Did he consider it might be part of a blackmail plot? Or does he thinks he's so famous that of course a teenager wants to have sex with him? We'll never know.)
There are two issues here, one being Stallman's hesitance regarding the use of the word "child" depending on which country this all took place in, and two being Stallman's comment that there may have not been any coercion at all.
While it's vanishingly unlikely the latter was the case, to vilify Stallman for these statements instead of making scientific inquiry is absurdly reactionary and unempathetic towards someone who is very naturally trying to make rationalizations towards the behavior of someone whom they hold in high regard, as is typical in during the doubting stage of grief.
>but Stallman's behavior quite likely has held back the FSF for some time. He's an ideologue, not a leader.
On this last point, We have to agree to disagree. His firm and unwavering stance on many issues is a flag planted in the sand - "This is how things should be" (whether or not its practical). It is a point of reference which countless engineers, designer, entrepreneurs in tech (including in big companies in FAANG, etc.) have been influenced by (whether or not they were able to live upto his ideal) when building their systems and companies.
Everyday, living in the dystopian nightmare that the modern world (both real and virtual) is becoming, oftentimes enabled by OSS, 'Stallman was right' is something that keeps coming back. Its not just a glib meme.
> ... Supposing as you do that society currently holds the wrong opinion on "does sex with minors constitute sexual assault?", the right answer is unlikely to be hashed out on a MIT list for CS activities.
I expressed no opinion either way on that topic. I don't even consider the topic relevant to my position, which is that once we agree that merely asking some questions will result in harsh punishments, we're hosed as a society.
Today, it's the question you hate that gets punished. Tomorrow it will be the question you hold most dear.
The punishment is not the result of asking questions. The punishment is for his poor judgement of where to ask those questions - namely a mailing list owned and operated by MIT on which he served as a representative of while posting to that list.
So your premise is flawed and thus your position is (ironically) irrelevant to the topic.
Who decides which are the questions that a representative of the university can ask and which will lead to punishment?
As far as I can tell, the discussion was on-topic given that a former professor, Minsky, was being accused of "assault." Stallman's questions and statements revolved around the use of that term and the trouble that its lack of specificity brings.
The university is (ideally) full of scholars holding controversial views, asking uncomfortable questions, and being accused of all manner of crimes. If one of them (Minsky) can be tarred and feathered without a trial, any of them could be.
I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but I enjoyed my university experience where most of my professors were scholars holding more or less banal views and, to the best of my knowledge, not a one being accused of "all manner of crimes." I don't think professors being accused of crimes is either common or beneficial to the spirit of learning and scientific inquiry.
>but I enjoyed my university experience where most of my professors were scholars holding more or less banal views
If their views are banal, then there is likely nothing novel academically coming out of them. That’s literally the opposite point of professorship, tenure, and academic inquiry.
I recommend you look up the definition of “banal” because you either used it wrong or you don’t know what the point of tenure is.
Technically we don't know for sure what the punishment was for. Especially given that he's said much worse things in the past without resigning, it's possible that these resignations were forced because of some yet worse comments which haven't become public. And even if all of the relevant material is public, it seems likely that this is just the culmination of many issues and the FSF board and supporters simply ran out of patience for rms's antics at last, and that the tone-deaf and bizarre defense of Minsky was just the last straw.
>>I expressed no opinion either way on that topic. I don't even consider the topic relevant to my position, which is that once we agree that merely asking some questions will result in harsh punishments, we're hosed as a society.
Imagine a person emails a large distribution group at their office with the following question: "I notice we have many black employees: does anything think it might be beneficial if we return to chattel slavery and own them? Could lower our bottom line"
Would that person be fired? Should that person be fired? Are there questions that shouldn't be asked? Is everything fair game?
It's crazy to see people taking this stance on a public forum for tech companies. He's talking about Minsky just like you're talking about Stallman. What makes this the correct venue for you but not that for him?
In its most literal form I don't know if I would say I disagreed with the core of what Stallman was saying in the email (that "sexual assault" should perhaps be revised in its usage), but Stallman was tone-deaf at best to have pontificated on such a comparatively minor (and highly arguable) matter when he did and where he did. Worse, with what he wrote, there is a reading of the email where the subtext is that Stallman was trying to mitigate Minsky's culpability. I won't comment on whether I think that was indeed what he was trying to do, but it's not a good look, regardless of whether that is indeed what he was trying to do.
Many people will acknowledge the value of Stallman's stubborn, iconoclastic opinions. I'd count myself among them, and it's a little sad to see Stallman go from his pulpits. But on the other hand, I'm relieved: it might be in Stallman's constitution to be at all times a rational reasoning machine, impervious to emotion and sentiment, but this is not how most people are, and on many occasions Stallman has shown that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about this. There are times when one should refrain from saying something that is merely correct because of the symbolic meaning it would have, or the emotional responses it would elicit.
> In its most literal form I don't know if I would say I disagreed with the core of what Stallman
You qualify this, but that is basically the core of what Stallman supporters are looking at.
Saying something that is literally true, in an industry which is known to be stuffed with some very literal minded people, should not be grounds for anyone resigning. It should be grounds for doing nothing, apologising or clarifying depending on what was said.
It is risky to punish people for what they did not literally say. Particularly if they are the sort of person who is well known for striving to be literally correct.
It is rather hard to support his statement of his "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
Forget about the content of the statements for a moment.
Imagine a person expresses skepticism of an idea you consider "settled." Do you:
1. demand the person be let go from his/her current position
2. provide evidence that counters the skepticism
If the correct response is (1), then you yourself are at risk of a Stallman exit. Every one of us holds at least one point of skepticism that one or more groups will be deeply offended by.
The liberal idea, under assault form all shades of the political spectrum, depends on (2) being the correct response.
This may be an appealing idea in the abstract, but there are people who sincerely hold the view others are subhuman and deserve to be raped and killed, and there are people who believe it’s fine to have sex with kids.
Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating.
If there is a belief that is backed up by evidence (and in this case there is) then the first response should always be to provide that evidence.
Just because someone sincerely believes that others are subhuman doesn't mean the conversation ends immediately. We could try providing evidence and clarifying whether they are dead-centre wrong or just dealing with a technical detail before turning to exclusionary tactics.
I mean, seriously. If the choices are (1) end the conversation, try and get someone to resign and (2) try and convince someone to take a different view through conversation over a few days then (2) is far superior. We have a lot of people working in, eg, law and the upper echelons of business who are fantastic contributors to the general good despite having extremely questionable moral stances.
Is that also the second response? And the 100th? It isn't like Stallman provided new arguments or new evidence here. This wasn't the first response. It was the 100th.
> Just because someone sincerely believes that others are subhuman doesn't mean the conversation ends immediately.
Holocaust deniers used this very tactic under the banner of "skepticism".
They wrote books, they gave speeches. They participated in "academic debate" as if the authenticity of the holocaust was something to be debated.
And they caused a lot of pain to those that did live through the holocaust -- only to hear from someone making false claims that it did not, in fact, happen.
Thanks to people that instead of refusing to debate the deniers choose to show proof of why they were wrong, nowadays, 74 years after the horrors, we have readily available proof to counter the lies of whom, with malice, try to deny it again. If people had chosen the first tactic of refusing to debate the most probable thing would be that we wouldn't have this amount of proof to counter them today.
We should always explain why something is wrong and try to convince to avoid future trouble.
The problem of course being, that Holocaust victims were asked to be more logical about genocide while denialists defended the notion that it didn't happen at all.
If someone using a tactic in bad faith means we can't use the tactic any more, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. People talking about things they don't understand and being in need of correction goes a bit deeper than "well, Holocause deniers ask questions too!".
Stallman is not a serial Holocaust denier. He is a software philosopher.
And insofar as he is an agitator, on most of his pet topics time has proven him to be right rather than to be a troll.
> Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating.
We could have decided that three hundred years ago too, in which case the divine right of kings would still be a thing.
EDIT: A lot of people seem to think that the divine right of kings would not have been a thing worth strongly defending back in the early 1700s - and certainly far more than they would have defended the rights of people in the west indies or far east to not be "raped and killed". Do you have any argument to back this up? Would bumping things to five hundred years change that?
If banning discussion of things outside the overton window wouldn't have had results you'd like then, why would it do so now? There might be reasons! But I haven't heard people bringing them up.
Most of us are at risk for losing our jobs over far less. Our boss can decide he doesn’t like the way we dress, and we’ll be looking for a new job before the end of the day.
Millions of workers labor under threat of starvation just for standing up for themselves a little bit. Expressing a straightforward opinion like “it is illegal to work off the clock” or “a 30 minute lunch break is mandatory in this state” can be enough to provoke retaliation.
Why are people so eager to spend so much energy defending a guy who, at the very least, wrote a bunch of inappropriate things in a completely inappropriate place?
What’s the slippery slope here? “If a man can’t rant about the unfairness of statutory rape laws on a computer science mailing list, then....” I don’t know how that sentence is supposed to end.
There are so many more important things to worry about. A kook is losing his platform. He’ll have to shout into the void like the rest of us. Oh, the horror!
I think the purported slope is that currently you can be fired at the whim of your boss (who presumably knows you well), but in the future you might be fired at the whim of a blogger (who has never met you). You have only one boss to keep happy, which is stressful but substantially under your control. Giving equivalent power to myriad bloggers scares people because there is less accountability and more possibility of false accusations.
Maybe some ideas are in fact so "settled" that anyone being seriously skeptical of them is either trolling (and not worth our time) or frighteningly unethical (and should not be in a position of power).
For example:
1) Men should be dominant over women. Women should have no rights, and be little more than property.
2) Certain races are inferior and should be put back into chattel slavery.
3) Eating toddlers is fine, actually.
Would you bother trying to counter those ideas in good faith? Or should the people expressing those views maybe be fired/punished/etc.
Well, if their job involves serving female customers, managing sub-human employees or providing day care, then yes they absolutely should be fired. Otherwise, no, of course not. Because while it may be "obvious" to you that eating toddlers is bad, it is self-evident that large numbers of people can be convinced that e.g. blasphemy is just as bad. What protects us there is this principle that people can mostly say whatever they want without fear of punishment. What you're suggesting is that only popular ideas should be protected. Popular ideas do just fine even without protection, so this is tantamount to not protecting any ideas at all.
It's not just about free speech, it's about his position of leadership in those organisations. He needs to either moderate his public viewpoints in order to look out for the best interests of the people there, which is what a good leader would do, or he needs to resign because he clearly doesn't understand his job.
When you're the head of the FSF, or any other organisation really, you can't just be some kind of agitator, throw out a bunch of controversial nonsense, and then expect it to not look bad for the people you're supposed to represent. It's not an "assault on free speech" to get kicked to the curb for making your organisation look bad, it's cause and effect.
How would you respond if someone said something like:
"The literal-minded personalities we often encounter in the engineering profession are just not cognitively capable of handling leadership positions. They suffer from autism, a form of mental illness, and while they are fit for highly logical and problem solving tasks are not fit for tasks that involve social or political decision making. It's important that they be kept away from positions of influence or outward-facing communication and properly managed."
Would you call for that person's resignation? I sure as hell would.
If Stallman thought UFOs were clearly alien spacecraft or that Bigfoot was a real surviving prehistoric hominid, I don't think anyone would care. If he took some positions that were more politically charged, like denying evolution or climate change, people might get mad or call him names but I doubt they'd call for his resignation from the FSF or MIT over it.
There is no broad based "witch hunt" against divergent opinions, but there is a new-found extreme intolerance for a certain narrower set.
The opinions in question are those that denigrate other human beings or deny them equal rights or dignity, such as the choice to engage in pedantic hair splitting to defend the sexual exploitation of children.
Other well known cases of "cancel culture" follow the same pattern: Brendan Eich apparently funding campaigns to deny rights to homosexuals, a Google engineer taking the time to write a wall of text explaining why women are "on average" less suited for engineering work, and so on.
So the question becomes: do you think it's right for society or our peers to react so strongly to those kinds of opinions? Is there value in debating them?
P.S. As for the extreme reaction: sexual abuse of children and adolescents is fairly prevalent. Statistically it's pretty likely that at least a small double-digit percentage of free software authors and people involved in the free software community are victims. Seeing Stallman go out on a limb to defend or at least apologize for that kind of thing probably angered quite a few people for reasons that are entirely understandable, especially in the context of his past comments about pedophilia. Sometimes it's tough to see what the big deal is when it's not about an issue that directly relates to you, hence the artificial example I wrote up above.
I've argued couple of people into doing things my way; the typical pattern is that they disagree vehemently in conversation for a few hours and then a few days later start doing what I asked them to do. On rare occasions it takes a few months. And I've occasionally been on the receiving end of that treatment.
Minds don't change in seconds, particularly around what language to use to describe an issue; it usually takes a few days of thinking.
It might be damage control, but realistically this whole blow up is absurd for a few emails on an academic mailing list. Academic mailing lists are supposed to be the best place in the world to encounter views that will change people's minds.
He does it using his alternative to singular they: "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically." Doesn't really seem sincere when he's grinding another axe at the same time. https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
Another variant of his invented nomenclature besides per is perse which I'd rather not be called. It sounds like a child of purse and hearse.
you must not be very familiar with rms if you think he's not being sincere for "grinding another axe at the same time". stallman has been grinding all of his axes, at all times, without exception.
this is the only time to my knowledge that stallman has ever gone back on one of his fundamental positions.
Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you.
Most people kinda rank pedophile apologia--and, yes, I did read what he wrote, and yes, the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia--above that, though, and I would hope that you would at minimum grant that the level of understanding you seek to demand of everyone else.
> Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you.
Ok. You're actually right. I regret saying that software is the only important thing.
Honestly, I guess that part of my comment was a post-rationalization, but what actually bothers me is the hypocrisy of the media and society in general, because they don't apply the same rigor when an institution or person does or says much more despicable when they like those things. But that has nothing to do with this specific issue.
>the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia.
Nope, it isn't. Many of his comments actually are, but if you analyze the "most plausible scenario" quote, it has nothing to do with it.
The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software. He is, to put it absurdly nicely, not the sort of people person who should be leading such an organization.
> The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software
I fear that this has become true, but the only reason anybody gives a damn about the FSF and the only reason this is even newsworthy is because of the software and licenses produced by the FSF.
If you take the software away the FSF is nothing, so I don't understand how you can claim it's primarily a community.
Right, the foundation produces community, and the community produces software. RMS’s role is almost entirely about leading that community, not producing that software.
Ironically if everybody had done that, things wouldn't have played out this way.
When at work, confine it to work stuff folks. There's a genius to it. It automatically renders you incapable of things like gossip, harassment, gaffes like this, and most other trouble. The only trouble left for you to get into is saying stupid things about the work itself, which I can't help you with. But remember you're working in a complex world with different people who don't share your opinions and ideally aren't your friends and you ideally don't need them to be, because you've got a vibrant life outside of work, and you go to work, to work on work, and talk about work, and when the work's done, you leave.
I don't know if I want to live in that world, a full day around people with which any kind of normal conversation is strictly forbidden.
In the majority of my career I've been in workplaces with colleagues, many like-minded but plenty not, to whom I felt I could say more or less whatever the fuck I want. That seems much better to me, but who knows.
Did I say forbidden? I'm talking about self-discipline. The ideal would be to be so engaged and absorbed with work, that that's the thing you want to talk about. Ideally you're enjoying it. And anyway, just because some Angry Poo-Poo Face Boss Guy made me mad by telling me to focus on the work long ago, doesn't mean it's a bad idea for me to do it now, on my own, for my own reasons. Kind of like how lifting a heavy-ass weight, which sucks, actually is a good idea because it makes me stronger.
I also feel like your saying whatever you want, and having it be fine, depends on certain things, like both people being okay with it. For example (and I'm not saying this is you), a lot gets said and taken for granted between white males in software, that wouldn't be okay for non-white non-males and shouldn't be taken for granted. What's normal conversation for one person might not be normal for others. That is absolutely what happened with Mr. Stallman here. Questions of right or wrong should be hashed out with people you trust and share a foundation with, and upon whom you don't depend for rent money. Because everybody else is too fucking crazy now. AND, anyway, more to my main point, ideally you're too busy getting shit done!
Edit: Again, that's until work's over, at which point you make a clean break and go do whatever else. I'm a fan of the dividing line.
'Nuther edit: This case is actually more of a gray area because the Epstein thing affects the Media Lab and the whole Institute. It's all intertwined. So, ironically, it's a quasi-work-related conversation. But you can still say that the topic was more thrust on everyone, as opposed to being and having always been a natural part of the work. In fact, whoever caused the two things to mix in the first place [Epstein's money and MIT] done fucked up. Which is what everybody's saying, obviously, but they're saying it because of the moral murk of it, whereas I'm saying, my simpler philosophy about not mixing things, also would have prevented it just as effectively. My objection can simply be that Epstein and his horseshit have nothing to do with the work and have no place at the Institute. Somebody smart could've seen that right off, of course, but they were tempted by the money. Upton Sinclair bla bla "...when his [gittin' PAID] depends on his not understanding it."
> The ideal would be to be so engaged and absorbed with work, that that's the thing you want to talk about.
Sure, but aren't breaks necessary at some point during a full workday? It's just nice to work with people with whom it's fun to get lunch, coffee, beer. I also suspect it makes for stronger teams, because humans are naturally more inclined to go out of their way for people we're friendly with. But that's just conjecture.
As for RMS... it seems to me that his statements are being intentionally and loudly distorted, and that in itself is very concerning. But it's also beyond obvious that the FSF is better off without him. Its leader cannot be posting irrelevant stuff that they fully know will be emotionally divisive in the community. His job is to grow the free software community, not divide it. If he can't make his feelings about statutory rape subordinate to that, then he cannot be its leader.
But I don't think this extends all the way to "remain silent at work, it can only be used against you" attitude, especially among peers who respect each other and not situations with junior employees or even a public audience of thousands or millions.
Yeah this is definitely a multi-leveled and rich situation, no question. And you're right that my suggestion isn't like, universally applicable. Sometimes an ideal is just that, an ideal (which is just an idea).
I don't think the many people who have experienced his abuse directly, or the victims he is trying to minimize, would agree with your assessment of what's important.
Demanding the same standard of evidence we demand in court and science to disrupt human power structures helps those with power retain it and use it against those who have less power.
Also what he said is fully public, so I don't understand what you, or he, is objecting to.
> Demanding the same standard of evidence we demand in court and science to disrupt human power structures helps those with power retain it and use it against those who have less power.
Okay sure, but you're talking about loosening a standard for accuracy of conviction... This means that you can decrease failures to convict truly guilty people—but in equal proportion you will also increase convictions of innocent people.
This does not sound like a well thought out strategy.
The standard of evidence is lower in civil cases than criminal ones. Taking away someone's bodily autonomy is different than saying you can't have a prominent role at a prestigious institution. You don't (or shouldn't) have an inalienable right to power.
> The standard of evidence is lower in civil cases than criminal ones.
That's probably because the standard of accuracy is tied to severity of punishment (they're will to pay more for a higher standard in cases where it's more damaging to be wrong). Are you arguing that someone losing their job or other position of influence is low-enough severity that we don't need a high standard? That seems reckless to me.
> Taking away someone's bodily autonomy is different than saying you can't have a prominent role at a prestigious institution.
Agreed. Putting someone in jail is more severe than taking someone's job. I don't think this is controversial.
> You don't (or shouldn't) have an inalienable right to power.
Nobody has claimed this.
> And, again, the facts aren't even in dispute.
This entire thread is a massive contradiction of that claim.
Their exact words are "court and science"—and the bigger point from the gp comment was about evaluating these things in the spirit of "scientific inquiry".
Yes — they are saying that we should require a lower standard of evidence to disrupt human power structures (e.g. ask someone to resign) than we should for court and science (e.g. convicting someone of a crime or accepting a scientific theory).
The comment they are replying to isn't requesting a similar standard to that for accepting a scientific theory—it was pointing out the danger of punishing people for assessing controversial events with an attitude of scientific inquiry.
> he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
And the reply to this is that we shouldn't have such high standards for deciding to punish people in power? If nothing else it's a non-sequitur.
Any my original comment still stands: if you do that, you're going to punish more innocent people too.
> Any my original comment still stands: if you do that, you're going to punish more innocent people too.
Is this a bad thing? Different courts also have different standards of proof. Are you saying that you should have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt in civil court? If your friend tells you an acquaintance said something mean to them, are you going to gather evidence and do cross-examinations before you'll believe them?
There is some optimal standard for any class of cases. (At the very least varying the standard will produce better/worse results in relation to particular classes of cases.)
So, no—
> are you going to gather evidence and do cross-examinations before you'll believe them?
—that would be a very bad choice of standard.
I have not claimed to know what the optimal choice of standard is (I will claim that no one else knows it either though), but I do think that changing the standard would have a huge societal impact, and so it shouldn't be done on the basis of a hunch that the outcome would be better. I pointed out one possible complication (convicting more innocent people), though of course the possibilities there are endless.
So to be absolutely clear: I am not advocating for a tighter standard, I'm suggesting that there are complications entailed in lowering it, so it should only be done on a much firmer grounding than some vague notions about catching more bad guys.
"Asking questions" that deny people's humanity over and over isn't exactly a positive intellectual exercise.
We pretty conclusively decided that race based chattel slavery was wrong a while ago. But why? Can we keep expressing ideas and demanding proof of these claims? Can we do it forever? Can we do it while holding positions of power at institutions that are attended by black students?
Because the abolition of slavery is one of the greatest achievements of our civilization.
New generations of humans are constantly being born, and until we teach them, they don't know why this is. They don't know why slavery was such a black mark on our history. They don't understand what it does not just to the people involved, but to a society. They don't know why it proliferated so easily (and this is still very relevant today; when our society turns a blind eye to illegal immigrant labor, it's an echo of the same economics that made slavery easy for past generations to accept).
You should be able to sit down with a 9th grader and explain to them, this is what slavery was, this is how common it was for most of history. This is why it was so tempting and these are the benefits people reaped from it. But this is how we realized that the costs outweighed the benefits, and how we created a better world at a great cost to many people.
Crucially, it's important to explain to someone how slavery would be bad for them and their community, even if they themselves were not a slave.
It's important to teach all of this to the new humans we raise. "It was bad, end of story" is not enough. The best way for them to learn is to reason through the arguments on both sides, explore the history, see how we got to where we are, and draw their own conclusions. Because you can't force a belief on someone. They need to get there themselves.
If you ban the discussion they are going to reach their beliefs without guidance. And the isolated, the lonely, the angry will end up with some very dark beliefs. It's happening now as a direct response to censorship culture.
I completely understand that slavery is a difficult and very personal topic for a lot of people. These are hard conversations to have. But for the sake of future generations we need to have them. Beliefs are stronger when they're justified. They are strongest when they are challenged, defended, and the challenges are defeated. We should never stop doing that.
Explaining why slavery is wrong and why its proponents were monstrous is not the same as "lets have a continual public debate about my right to own you until the end of time".
Not only does this distract from productive intellectual discussion, it carries an implied threat that if a historically oppressed population ever slips up and fails to defend themselves that they'll be forced back into oppression.
Any explanation of why slavery is wrong falls flat unless you examine why it has been a part of so many human societies for most of history. You have to look at why so many people supported it, not just write them off as monsters.
Inevitably, that requires you to play devil's advocate. I agree, it's callous, insensitive, and unproductive if someone runs around telling other people that he has the right to own them. I don't think we should encourage that. But how can you understand a point of view if you're not allowed to state it?
That's exactly the ability we've lost as a society. The single most powerful thing you can do to bury the practice of slavery and everything like it is to sit someone down and tell them to write an essay explaining an argument in favor of slavery, then to defend it.
Slavery has been justified with many arguments. Some race based, some economic, some paternalistic. But what they all have in common is that when you explore them in depth and you see where they lead, you end up in a dark place. A place you realize you personally don't want to live in, that feels fundamentally wrong and detrimental to all the best things a human being can be.
That experience is personal, it's transformative and it's how a person develops a fundamental sense of justice which they then carry with them for the rest of their lives.
I think there is a lot of really bad discourse out there about controversial and sensitive issues (for instance, very little good comes out of having this type of discussion on Twitter, where everything is a reaction and people rarely think before they tweet). No that stuff is not productive, but there is a way to have these discussions which makes us better people. They used to be the subject matter of high school Civics until they were deemed too insensitive. We have moved backwards as a society by moving them to Twitter.
> We pretty conclusively decided that race based chattel slavery was wrong a while ago.
Unfortunate that you should use this example since slavery was finally abolished precisely because people kept "asking questions" contrary to the prevailing zeitgeist about why slaves did not enjoy the same rights as other humans.
Never has then been a clearer demonstration of why the "stop asking questions" stance advocated by progressives is intellectually bankrupt.
> We pretty conclusively decided that race based chattel slavery was wrong a while ago. But why? Can we keep expressing ideas and demanding proof of these claims?
Obviously yes? How else would we know that we are right?
Bypassing for now the merits (or not) of his arguments, which will certainly get a deep philosophical treatment on a site where long comment threads are impossible to navigate and are really only active for a day or less anyway...
RMS's de facto role in the FSF has been spokesperson and public figure. This isn't the first time he's put his foot in his mouth [1][2][3] (figuratively or literally, according to some accounts). That's simply not a role to which he is suited, and that at least should be an argument most can agree with, if reluctantly.
We all make allowances for bad behavior from our favorite people, as long as that bad behavior isn't too repugnant or doesn't undermine the role we appreciate them for.
In RMS's case, at the very least his behavior keeps distracting people from the issues that the FSF was formed to address.
Let RMS return to roles for which he is better suited, and like Eric S Raymond's frequent bouts of insanity, we can all go back to appreciating that at least he manages to stay out of the news cycle.
> It sets a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship on a topic that really requires the disinfecting power of sunshine.
This incident doesn't change anything since much more chilling precedents have been set so many times before. RMS's position is way too extreme here, 99.9% of people would probably find it despicable. Meanwhile, lives (including at least one Nobel laureate's) have been destroyed for contentious, merely politically incorrect statements (or less). The ship has long sailed, RMS just didn't get the memo, maybe due to the peculiar way he uses the Internet.
> This incident doesn't change anything since much more chilling precedents have been set so many times before
Your not wrong, but in this case he is 2 degrees of separation away from someone that we know was guilty. It feels like the witch hunting has moved onto those who are guilty by association.
> RMS's position is way too extreme here, 99.9% of people would probably find it despicable.
I'm not cheering. I would much rather live in a universe where Stallman didn't "I'm just saying" himself out of his own organisation. I don't even like him that much, but I think he represented an important voice in software. It's not good that he's out, but I think it is right.
I am dumbfounded anew every time I see a smart and analytical person twist themselves around to the point that they become too smart to believe in analysis. Saying Stallman was persecuted for "expressing ideas" is about as sophisticated as "my program crashed because the electrons were in the wrong place". You wouldn't be satisfied with an understanding that shallow in any other circumstance.
Meaning. Words have it. Questions have it. Ideas have it. "Etsy for houseplants" is an idea, as is "figuring out your home address from information available online and breaking in to your house tonight while you're sleeping". Why is one of them creepier than the other? I can't believe I'm being persecuted for just having ideas!
The meaning of Stallman's argument is that he doesn't think Minsky did anything wrong. Why doesn't he think Minsky did anything wrong? Probably because he was a friend, a good guy, a peer, who knows. Because of these entirely scientific feelings, he makes a series of arguments:
1. She only said she was directed to have sex with Minsky, not that she actually did
2. Even if she did say she had sex with Minsky, she may have been confused and answering the wrong question
3. Even if she did actually have sex with Minsky, she probably made it appear consensual
4. Even if she was not legally capable of consent, that is not morally equivalent to rape
5. Thus, it is "injustice" and "wrong" to say Minsky is accused of sexual assault
Is this your science? Is this the altar of rationality you're worried will be torn down by the rabid inquisitors of the new dark age? Because to me it sounds a lot more like The Dragon in My Garage. How far must our credulity stretch to believe that Minsky foresaw most of modern AI, only to fall for "hot willing 17-year-olds in your area"?
And how does a man like Stallman look at open source and see politics, look at dynamic linking and see politics, look at javascript and see politics – and look at science and see nothing but science? Like you, I do not believe Stallman is malicious. I believe he is naive. That is a fine quality in a revolutionary, but not in a leader.
RSM did not say 1 or 2. There are other people in that thread besides him... all names have been redacted except his.
He did say 3.
He did say 4, but (perhaps I misunderstand?) you seem to have colored it. Epstein as a coercer remains a factor; the assertion is that this cannot be morally on Minsky if one assumes he didn't know about it.
4.2 He also argues that, morally speaking, rape is rape, and not-rape is not-rape, irrespective of location and whether a girl was 17 or 18. This is also not part of his primary argument; it was a response to someone else (a student, I've heard?) bringing these exact legal details to the table.
5. The thing is, depending on whether you say that "Minsky is accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims", and "Minsky is accused of having sex with a 17-year old victim of Epstein's sex trafficking", or even some other title besides, people are going to have different reactions. Some people might have the same reaction to both, but other people might envision something different when presented with the former title, than when presented with the latter. RMS argues for a more specific title, arguing that the original is prone to accusation inflation.
> How far must our credulity stretch to believe that Minsky foresaw most of modern AI, only to fall for "hot willing 17-year-olds in your area"?
Well, I imagine the figurative advertisement was probably more like "hot willing 18-year-olds in your area", possibly coupled with an exchange of money.
I'm not saying you don't have any points. I can follow most of your reasoning. But maybe you might adjust your 1-5, then re-evaluate your position from there? Is it possible that you don't arrive at an identical conclusion?
I want to agree with you in some aspects of this, but the history of this topic has been so severely lopsided that the current cleansing was due and is helping. As a man, I can only imagine the shit women put up with on a daily basis.
Here's a direct quote from one of his recent emails:
> “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
Is this really a topic that "requires the disinfecting power of sunshine"? Do we really think we've gotten the topic of statutory rape so wrong that we need to rethink it from first principles?
His point, as far as I can tell, is that in different countries legally define rape in different ways, but that shouldn't change what we find morally wrong.
To extend on what I think he is saying, he thinks it should be possible to say a thing was morally wrong regardless of which country it happened in.
If we're discussing if we think a person did something morally wrong, I'd rather talk about why we think that rather than pointing out there is a law against it (especially when the laws are different in different places).
I concur with your thinking on this. I'm no fan of Stallman, and I think both the FSF and CSAIL are probably better of without him ghosting around, but the way in which this happened is deeply problematic. Stallman's opinion in this case was clearly a bit out of whack, but the tone and style of the message was completely on point for his character. And therein lies the problem here, I'm fairly sure Stallman's points could have been formulated in a way that would not have provoked such a visceral reaction. Stallman tends to be unable to empathize with his interlocutors (or at least unable to express such empathy in writing), turns everything that happens into a case study in moral philosophy, and is a bit terse and snippy in his emails. All that makes him not a pleasant debater for sure, but are we as a society really willing to take somebody's livelihood because of their poor rhetoric style?
The next thing that happened was that the news picked it up, but got most of the details wrong, taking the problematic statement out of context, mischaracterizing his relationship with MIT, mischaracterizing what he did exactly, etc and as a result whipping up an angry mob demanding his firing.
Now, of course many people have wanted Stallman gone for all sorts of reasons of his general unpleasantness for many years, so this seems to have been as much a convenient excuse to rally those efforts as anything else. Nevertheless, one must ask at what cost - the blade of public outrage is sharp and hard to control. At no point at no point in this process was their any room for fact finding or reasoned debate among the people aggrieved and affected by this.
We've let Stallman spam csail-related for many years to the point that it was a common joke for it to be called stallman-related in the lab ("Where'd you find your aparment?" "Oh, I posted on stallman-related - I half expected to get a moral lecture from him about the immorality of private ownership of real estate, but looks like he was busy"). Was it a mistake to let that happen so long on a list that everybody at CSAIL is automatically subscribed to, especially the new incoming students? Probably. Because of aforementioned rhetoric challenges his emails are not the best first impression of the lab community. I think banning Stallman from csail-related could have been a perfectly proportionate response here (as well as making him take down that stupid door tag). This all-or-nothing witch hunt, deeply concerns me.
>Regardless of what low regard the man might be held as a person, he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
Defending the rape of trafficked children is not a "hallmark of scientific inquiry".
I read the full thread, and I didn't see anything that I would consider "defending rape". It seemed pretty clear that he thinks Epstein was a bad person and that what happened to Giuffre is not good. The closest thing to defending rape is him trying to give Minsky the benefit of the doubt (e.g. stating that Minksky may not have known Giuffre's age or situation, and IIRC in her deposition she was careful to avoid saying whether or not she actually had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein wanted her to).
Are sexually mature underage people prepubescent children now? It's ridiculous that people continue to willfully conflate the two just because they want to continue to have the moral high ground.
I guess I'm not up to speed and haven't read everything he said, can you quote his exact words he said on Thrusday that led you to conclude he was "Defending the rape of trafficked children"?
Stallman has just said he's having to resign after being accused over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations, is this an example of a mischaracterization of what he said or did he really say he defended raping trafficked children?
It's 2019. Social justice and "cancel culture" are intrinsic values to open source now, at least as much as sharing code and collaboration.
The situation with Brendan Eich shows that if you have the wrong political views, you are not considered fit to serve as the leader of any open-source organization or project. especially not one with corporate backing. It's too much of a risk of PR disaster.
So be careful. Coraline Ada Ehmke and Sage Sharp are watching you. They will find and expose your crimes.
Thinking about how your actions affect your coworkers and customers isn’t some giant imposition, my dude. It’s a minimum baseline of professional competence. Any barista in the country knows better than to act like that in a professional setting.
Programmers aren't baristas, broseph, and few if any baristas are as deeply on the spectrum as Stallman is. It's fundamentally ableist to hold everyone to a high standard of social functioning in order for them to be permitted to work. Especially if it's their life's work, at a nonprofit foundation they established.
If you were talking about Eich, he should be free as a private citizen to support the political causes he chooses to, even if those causes are disagreeable. He did not interfere with gay members of the Mozilla community, nor make his anti-gay-marriage contributions in a capacity of representing the Mozilla Foundation. He was literally as low-key about it as he could possibly be.
Using “autism” as an excuse is insulting to autistic people and ignores the autistic women who were forced to accommodate his behavior over the years. “Autistic” does not mean “asshole”.
It must be nice to imagine the rules of society don’t apply to you, but eventually society disagrees. If you are bad at your job, you might be fired from it, and “not making the entire industry a more hostile place” was at last part of the job description of an MIT professor.
Also note that there are actual laws about it in the USA, so not only is it part of the job description, it is a legally required part of the job description.
I wasn’t thinking about Eich, but that is another good example: it doesn’t matter how low-key you oppose some of your employees’ marriages, doing it at all still makes you a shitty CEO who makes it harder for your company to recruit and retain talent. Given that that is one of the core job requirements of a CEO, it made him unqualified for the position he held.
We don't know what Eich supports or opposes, all we know is that he contributed money to a campaign to oppose a particular law. Maybe he thought the law was unconstitutional or that, as written, it would cause more harm than good.
And even if he were opposed to gay marriage, if you cannot imagine how someone can philosophically oppose something, even if they are wrong, and yet still practice tolerance for that thing in their own life, then you cannot be reasoned with and should probably delete your account.
I’m gay. Brendan Eich ACTIVELY supported an institution attempting to keep me from being equal. So yeah, if you have the wrong political views, like ones that consider some people unequal, you absolutely deserve to be shitcanned. I’m sorry if I have a hard time feeling bad for people like that. I hope we find and weed out every last bigot, because people like me have fought too long and too hard to still be subjected to this crap. We don’t deserve it. Nobody deserves it.
If it's open season on anyone with undesirable political views, to prevent them from doing good work in areas unconnected with their political activity, what's to become of you when your political views are in the crosshairs? Once you embark on purges of people you don't like or disagree with, you've changed the rules of engagement. Your enemies will then feel justified in turning those same rules on you once they have a taste of a little bit of power.
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions.
I don't think it's quite that simple. Most likely, the real issue is he failed to know when to shut up about a sensitive topic after being basically told to shut up.
A crux of the issue is that men expect to be deferred to. They expect to have privilege and rights. They expect their views to be respected. They expect to have a right to express themselves.
And women generally cannot expect the same. Which is a foundation stone of what gets called "rape culture."
There are a lot of subtleties here and I'm sympathetic to some of Stallman's points, but I suspect the thing that people are bristling at is that his failure to shut up is a failure to genuinely respect the feelings and boundaries of women.
This is the real problem women face in life. This is the essence of the disregard that culminates in sexual harassment and rape.
Without that baseline fundamental respect, women have no choice but to quibble about bullshit details like legal age. Because it's all we've got to say "He shouldn't have done that to me" in a world that seems hell-bent on utterly ignoring baseline respect for women, especially when trying to demand it from a powerful and wealthy man.
Good luck with that sister. The exceptions are very few and far between.
It's funny seeing all the Stallman apologists coming out of the woodwork trying to justify what he said and decry this as a form of censorship. As if having more people dumping their opinions on every subject is a good thing. Sometimes it really is better just to shut up. Otherwise if you're going to air out your thoughts on touchy subjects, be ready to find yourself up against others who disagree in a profound way. Now he can make his career in social political issues instead of technological ones.
"So much depends on your reputation. Guard it with your life."
This is a terrible response IMO. We should take responsibility for what we say and be sensitive but we should let things like our career prospects affect our freedom of speech. That’s a chilling effect.
Your statement is pretty conflicting. I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you saying Stallmam was being sensitive by downplaying rape and sexual assault? That seems pretty insensitive to me. I'd say it's a good reason for others not wanting you to represent an organization anymore.
He’s being forced to resign from an advocacy organization for being a shithead who defends child rape. It sets the precedent that you can’t defend reprehensible acts and still be considered a community leader. We are all better off for it.
That precedent creates a stigma when discussing such topics. Let's say that you don't quite understand a particular viewpoint (doesn't have to be this - another good topic is racism & discrimination). Where do you go to learn more about the topic? Especially when you're aspiring to be a leader, this stigma incentivizes holding on to half-baked ideas that you simply can't discuss with anyone. That, in turn, creates a culture of double-speak.
So, in other words, good first-order effects, but bad second-order effects.
I find this argument to be so bizarre it’s hard to imagine it’s sincere. In what world is writing dumb and offensive rants to a CS mailing list a good way to learn about the legal, psychological, and moral aspects of sex slavery?
Where do you go to learn more? Maybe you could go to the library. You could enroll in classes. MIT is famous for technical subjects but I’m sure they have good classes about psychology, law, and ethics too. Or you could find stuff online, I’m sure there are plenty of good resources out there.
Legitimate questions to understand and active defense of a specific viewpoint look remarkably different. It’s possible to write in a way that successfully communicates something like “I want to understand racism more” and not “what if white people were like the dominant race tho?”
He's being pushed out for decades of being creepy, and especially so to women. At some point you have to say "enough", and that point is always going to look somewhat arbitrary. It's too bad MIT had to wait so very long to do this.
> he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions.
> 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”.
Saying that sexual assault isn't assault is scientific inquiry?
It's also unjust to say that he was accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims, when the only accusations are from people who inferred from "she was sent to Minsky's room" that "he said yes".
For what it's worth, those are also hallmarks of crankery. A creationist will happily express ideas, ask questions, and demand proof of claims until the Second Coming. An anti-vaxxer will argue for more research and more caution and advocate for what they themselves regard as objective standards before letting their children be vaccinated - and all the time be effectively telling people that it's better to be dead than autistic. Supporting them for their apparent scientific interests is merely supporting their message. A homeopath has an entire field of professional associations, licensing, and regulation to point to.
What determines whether you're advocating for scientific inquiry is whether you're arguing in good faith for positions that are in genuine need of inquiry, not whether you have the trappings of scientific research.
It’s pretty clear to me that the subtext of his “precision” is to make it clear that one is less bad than the other. Just look at literally every other person on twitter/hn/Reddit who has made the same helpful clarification.
Also, even if I’m willing to accept that precision is the reason he made that point (and I’m not), it adds nothing and at best serves to show how smart he is.
Like I mean honestly what changes once you realize it’s technically hebephilia and not pedophilia?
> It’s pretty clear to me that the subtext of his “precision” is to make it clear that one is less bad than the other. Just look at literally every other person on twitter/hn/Reddit who has made the same helpful clarification.
True, I'm not sure I really agree with that either. Pedophilia or any other sexual attraction isn't something you can control, as far as I'm aware, so as long as you don't actually act on it, they are not really better or worse than another.
> Like I mean honestly what changes once you realize it’s technically hebephilia and not pedophilia?
Actually, I had forgotten which term meant what, I was thinking of ephebophilia.
Are you going to tell me that you view sexual intercourse with a 6 year old as being the same as sexual intercourse with a 16 year old? If so, we can stop here.
If not, then here's what changes: if you tell me someone is a pedophile, I'm going to assume that their primary sexual interest is pre-pubescent children. That's the definition of the word, and I tend to generally assume that people mean what they say. It bothers me when you use the wrong word here, because it conveys the wrong impression. It's not about showcasing intelligence. It's about calling things what they are, to facilitate accurate communication. RMS is by all accounts even more pedantic about words than I am, so it's hardly surprising to me that he would make this distinction.
But hey, even if you don't believe in a difference in severity, there's still a difference between saying "this guy is sexually interested in pre-pubescent children" and "this guy is sexually interested in teenagers". Even if both are deemed equally offensive they are just flat out different --- and one is mis-information.
Because it's applying the terminology of scientific discourse to casual conversation, kind of like nitpicking a minor spelling, typographical, or grammatical error and using that as an excuse to negate an otherwise substantive comment.
Demanding a certain level of precision when the loose terminology isn't being used in bad faith comes off as an attempt to exert control over the terms of the conversation like a teacher or debate judge. It's insensitive at best and obnoxious at worst.
Obviously if the conversation is an actual legal or scientific debate precision and rigorous consistency are more acceptable, but that's by mutual agreement of all participants.
I understand that it's annoying if someone does this all the time but I don't see how it would be offensive. I'm pretty sure RMS is autistic, and he's known to be obsessed about using words as precisely as possible.
There isn't a lot of point distinguishing the categories unless you want to bang minors (or defend people banging minors, or defend/consume certain subsets of child pornography, etc, etc), so arguing about the category difference just makes you look like a pedophile or at best an idiot.
I'm sorry, did you read his blog post? It was disgusting. He was trying to argue the subtleties of child rape. There are no subtleties. Minor's cannot consent.
Ok. I am not sure that I should be writing this response...but with the madness prevalent in the world today, I don’t care anymore that this is on some random online nook..because I want to heard.
To say that minors cannot consent is absolutely horrifying to me. I would have felt ‘raped’ of my free agency to choose if I had been told as a minor that I ‘cannot consent’.
I was a minor. I consented. I was a sexual being just as I was a human being. Minors have to do non sexual adult things ALL the time. I still see adults well into their 40s and 50s who are immature compared to me when I was a minor. So age is a non-factor.
While I DO acknowledge that child sexual abuse occurs as does trafficking and that paedophiles exist out there, when my thoughts and actions and consent when I was a minor is ERASED and my decisions deemed irrelevant, I don’t know how to feel about it.
Reactions in the exact order of how I felt when I read ‘Minors cannot consent’ : Confusion. Anger. Understanding. Annoyance. Anger.
Some minors do adult non sexual things and make adult non sexual decisions all the time..sometimes because they don’t have a choice. Why is it that when it comes to sexual consent, the same minor does not have any agency?
I am trying to understand. It is difficult for me to accept that I am a non-being as a minor.
Please don’t start a flame war. I really want to understand why this is so and communicate as to why the blanket ‘minors cant consent’ is disempowering and has not really made the world a better safer place.
I also want to know what is a better and more effective solution to child sexual abuse(or any kind of sexual abuse) to replace ‘minors cannot consent’.
Minors cannot consent because they, in general, have a mental deficiency called "being young". They also, in general, are in the lowest power position of any potential relationship.
It isn't that minors are non-beings - it is that they're not fully developed yet, so they need protections. Where we draw that line is up to the law and culture of any location, but it exists.
It sucks to be the female of this species, let me tell you.
When we are minors, we are mentally deficient to be sexual beings. When we are adults, we are also told that we have no control or reproductive choice over what we do with bodies.
I hate to sound like this..because I don’t think of myself as a vocal feminist..I have always considered myself a rational being.
With that hat on, it seems to me that the female human being has no choice or agency and their physical bodies are mere vessels for the male of the species to fornicate, procreate and to be generally unobtrusively abiding by the rules made by the opposite gender.
The power and experience imbalance on average is the problem. Minors can't consent not because there aren't intelligent, mature minors, but because on average they are less mature and experienced than an adult.
I could tell a five year old that if they do something Santa will bring them gifts. That could be something completely reprehensible but they have no sense of right and wrong besides what I might tell them at that age.
At age ten, they are more capable of deciding that on their own. As you get older you become better at that and more autonomous. But at a young age the only things you know are what adults tell you is true. That's an extreme amount of power the adult has.
At some point we call people adults because we expect them to now have this responsibility and decide for themselves what they think is best for them because at a certain age we believe a majority of those young people should be autonomous. But that age is a guess and fairly arbitrary. Is it 17? 18? Probably somewhere around there. Is it 5? Nope.
So you have to draw the line somewhere. It sucks if you're an incredibly mature 16 year old, but if you are, then waiting two years to have sex with someone much older than you shouldn't be an overwhelming burden if the social benefit is greater for those less mature or in potentially abusive situations.
Why do you feel being a vocal feminist is at odds with being rational?
I see no problem at all with a rational, vocal feminist. Many people enter the latter category after considering the issue with rationality. It would be insulting towards those people to assume they didn't enter into it rationally.
Something being insulting to someone is not the same as them being offended. I am saying, you are insulting those people, disrespecting them, because they are not irrational. Have a good day and hopefully improve your awareness of other people's faculties.
Minors cannot consent because they, in general, have a mental deficiency called "being young".
Being young is not a mental deficiency. There are 17 year olds smarter than a legion of 70 year olds will ever be. Saying all young people have a mental deficiency has no bearing on reality.
I don't event want to weigh in on the age of consent debate here, I've just always hated the constant shitting on young people and their intellect just because their young. I hated it when I was young and grown adults who weren't that smart were clearly threatened by me, and I still hate it now that I'm older.
As a layperson I know no better than what I get in popular articles, however, my understanding is that the state of the art in neurology now says you are actually not fully formed mentally until your mid twenties. See: prefrontal cortex.
So you can say that 17 year old exceeds some adults and it may be true, but current neurological science suggests that 17 year old has not yet reached their full mental capacity.
I'm not saying some is fully developed mentally as a teenager. But people constantly dismiss ideas or suggestions from people younger than them... because they are younger. I really wish I hadn't let 'grown ups'(family, public school teachers... people who were neither very smart nor successful) brow beat me into thinking I was stupider than I actually was.
You are right. I guess the ideal is a bit of a balancing act. To embrace the advantages of youth - you are not so solidified, you can try things your elders might not dare or consider - but to remain humble and know that you have a lot of growth ahead, admitting that you haven't yet reached the peak.
Suddenly I remember why teenage years were so hard.
Nearly all of human history people were having sex, getting married, and having children while still being considered minors in the US today. Please let's not be ridiculous here.
Minors cannot consent because they can be convinced by someone more mature. Here's a simple example: let's say a 20 year old wants to have sex with a two year old. Would you accept that the two year old consented because the 20 year old got them to say "yes"?
The natural next question is, "where's the line?" A 20 year old and a two year old is obviously wrong, but a 25 year old and a 75 year old seems okay, if a bit weird. And yes, not every person the same age has the same amount of experience and maturity.
But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account. The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot. Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license.
Right. I hear you with the 20 year old wanting to have sex with a 2 year old.
Is a measure of puberty sufficient to give consent? I am not saying that it is..but perhaps it’s closer to a better situation.
Older societies had coming of age ceremonies and welcoming pre pubescents into young adulthood. Perhaps there was more value in the old traditions and rituals that we have given up in our modern times. It clarified to a young adult the changes that happen physically and hormonally..an opportunity to talk about things and take personal responsibility. A responsibility that means freedom as well as risk.
I am just throwing this out there..we have handed over societal bonding over to the state and legal system. It has certainly made us weak. And allowed more predation of the truly vulnerable while curtailing the freedom of those who are aware of risks and responsibilities.
Cool, we're on the same page with "minors cannot give consent" for at least some definition of "minor".
> Is a measure of puberty sufficient to give consent? I am not saying that it is..but perhaps it’s closer to a better situation.
The problem is, how do we measure "sufficient"?
If we just mean people's opinions, we can be more nuanced — for example, I think a grown person who has sex with an 18 year old is just as gross as one who has sex with a 17 year old, but I don't have an exact line in my head as to when it would become okay. Everyone's exact line will differ, and that's okay too!
On the other hand, if the law is trying to measure "sufficient", then we need something objective because people need to know when they would be breaking it. "Puberty" is pretty squishy — for example, do we count when a boy's voice deepens? When he starts growing facial hair? Whereas if we measure an objective fact like age, then if I know that fact I can be 100% sure whether or not I'm allowed to have sex with this person.
I agree with you that age an imperfect measure of maturity, which is what we really care about. But it seems to be the best measure we can come up with that's both objective and correlated.
> But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account.
Why?
> The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it.
Why does that need a "bright and clear line"? There are plenty of things that are illegal where there is no "bright and clear line" in that same sense, and that seems to work just fine, and actually even better in many cases. Like, I dunno, tax fraud is in principle tax fraud even at a single cent, but it's absolutely not "you paid all the taxes you owed, you are fine, you under-reported one cent of your income, now you lose your job and go to jail".
> And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot.
Which seems to be the case. Now, why is that a good approach?
> Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license.
So, maybe we should fix those as well? Why shouldn't you get a fractional vote starting at age 10, increasing linearly to a full vote at 18, say?
> Like, I dunno, tax fraud is in principle tax fraud even at a single cent, but it's absolutely not "you paid all the taxes you owed, you are fine, you under-reported one cent of your income, now you lose your job and go to jail".
There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud. The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally.
>> And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot.
> Which seems to be the case. Now, why is that a good approach?
Because — with regard to statutory rape — if I know someone's age I can be 100% sure whether or not I would be breaking the law by having sex with them.
> There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud.
In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line?
> The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally.
In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line?
Like, you are claiming that there is, and then provide the evidence that there isn't. All you are showing is that there is something that you want to call a "bright and clear line", but then you don't show anything in reality that actually matches that description in any meaningful sense.
> Because — with regard to statutory rape — if I know someone's age I can be 100% sure whether or not I would be breaking the law by having sex with them.
OK, so suppose we were to make the rule that if you under-report your income by any amount, whether intentionally or not, whether knowingly or not, you go to jail for ten years. That would be a bright and clear line, right? If you know that you reported all your income, you can be 100% sure whether you are going to jail. Why wouldn't that be a good approach? Or would it be?
>> There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud.
> In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line?
There is. A “bright and clear line” means a test is objective, not that it’s simple [1].
>> The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally.
> In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line?
There is. Just because something is not consistently enforced doesn’t mean it’s not clearly illegal. Cops may not fine you if they see you jaywalking, but you’re still unambiguously breaking the law if you cross the street outside of the crosswalk.
> OK, so suppose we were to make the rule that if you under-report your income by any amount, whether intentionally or not, whether knowingly or not, you go to jail for ten years. That would be a bright and clear line, right? If you know that you reported all your income, you can be 100% sure whether you are going to jail. Why wouldn't that be a good approach? Or would it be?
Most crimes (although not statutory rape) require intent to be shown [2]. No justice system is perfect; innocent people get convicted and guilty people go unpunished. A good law should allow people to unambiguously know when they would break it.
> There is. A “bright and clear line” means a test is objective, not that it’s simple [1].
Except you were obviously not using the phrase in that sense? There is absolutely no contradiction between "objective" and "taking into account many details of the individual case". There is absolutely no problem with writing a law that objectively specifies that the punishment for "17 years and 364 day" is going to be only marginally worse than for "18 years", for example, which you used as an example for why a "bright and clear line" would be necessary, and that that would mean that you have to have to have a strict cut-off point between hard punishment and no punishment at all.
> There is. Just because something is not consistently enforced doesn’t mean it’s not clearly illegal. Cops may not fine you if they see you jaywalking, but you’re still unambiguously breaking the law if you cross the street outside of the crosswalk.
In other words: There isn't. If you are breaking the law, but there are pretty reliably no consequences, in which sense are you then breaking the law that would be relevant to this discussion?
> Most crimes (although not statutory rape) require intent to be shown [2].
In other words: For most crimes, there is less of a "bright and clear line", and things generally seem to be working well, or even better. So, how is that a justificaton for having more of a "bright and clear line"?
> No justice system is perfect; innocent people get convicted and guilty people go unpunished.
Well ... sure? I am not sure why you mention that?!
> A good law should allow people to unambiguously know when they would break it.
I am not sure I would agree with that. I mean, yes, ideally, people should be able to know in advance what would constitute breaking a given law and what would not, sure. But the problem I see is that this ideal goal is in conflict with other goals of a legal system, such as being just. And "bright and clear lines" in the sense in which you are using the phrase tend to have very nasty side effects in that regard, because they massively increase the probability that honest mistakes that harm noone are punished the same as premeditated harming of another human, but also that someone intentionally doing harm that just so happens to be on the legal side of the "bright and clear line" goes unpunished.
So, I would agree that laws should be as objective as possible in describing what is illegal. But at the same time, circumstances should always be considered so as to avoid injustice that results from overly simplistic rules being applied. That doesn't mean that judges should make arbitrary decisions, though, in that there is no problem with at least attempting to codify the details of how to justly judge individual cases rather than settling for the simplest rule possible. While you might never be able to codify all the possible things to consider, that does not mean that the only other option is to make a simplistic rule.
I’ve meant “bright and clear line” in the legal sense this whole time, yes. Try googling it: basically every result uses to it in the sense in which I’m using it, and none use it to mean “simple”.
> I’ve meant “bright and clear line” in the legal sense this whole time, yes.
Let me quote you:
> But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account. The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot.
So ... your argument was what exactly? That the law could not possibly spell out a more complicated rule than "below 18 is illegal", because ... it is impossible to do so in the English language? Or what?
That the law needs an objective way to determine whether or not one can consent to sex. It can’t be e.g. “has reached puberty” as another commenter suggested, because there’s a huge gray area where it would basically be up to the whims of the jury whether or not you were breaking the law. We use age because it’s an objectively measurable proxy for maturity, and it’s more or less correlated.
As it happens, statutory rape law is already more complicated than a cutoff at 18. There are often exemptions for people who are married, or close in age. But the line is still objective — a “bright and clear line”, so to speak.
So, you would agree then that it would be better to have a law that, say, made the transition from "illegal to have sex with" to "perfectly legal" gradual, as long as the rules are clearly spelled out? That is, a law that tries to avoid the situation where a very minor difference in objective reality corresponds to a massive difference in consequences?
If that is what you meant to say, you really didn't explain that well in your original comment, as you explicitly claimed that the law could not take details into account, rather than that it should specifically avoid subjective criteria. After all, it is perfectly possible to take into account the fact that not all people of the same age have the same maturity without resorting to subjective criteria--such as by making the transition from legal to illegal sufficiently smooth in terms of possible punishment that the punishment statistically scales with the probability of the sexual interaction being with an immature person: While that obviously does not perfectly match the consequences to the actual maturity of each individual, it would give a much better correspondence between punishment and the abusiveness of the relationship overall than a hard cut-off, while still being based on objective criteria.
Now, you are right that the law is actually usually more complicated than a single hard cut-off, but it seems that it's often still doing a poor job due to lack of nuance.
As parent said, there needs to be a "bright and clear line."
We don't give 12-year-olds a 2/3 fractional vote because a) that introduces a ton of complexity for not much gain, and because b) children are essentially legally "owned" by their parents so the odds of their compulsion to vote a certain way rise dramatically. (Some people didn't want to give women suffrage last century because they figured it would just double the exact ratio of the existing men's vote tallies. And now a century later we have wives that still vote only to please their husband.)
Some things might work -- I don't think this would fly in the US but maybe you could allow 19-year-olds to buy beer (not liquor) like in some states in the 70s.
But how does that work for kids and sex? You want to embed the "first base, second base" junior high sex metaphor into the LAW? A 19-year-old can fondle a 16-year-old's breasts but not her genitals?
Again: "bright" and "clear" have legal and common-sense context here.
> We don't give 12-year-olds a 2/3 fractional vote because a) that introduces a ton of complexity for not much gain
Which might be true or not, but in any case does not support the claim that it is somehow inherently impossible.
> and because b) children are essentially legally "owned" by their parents so the odds of their compulsion to vote a certain way rise dramatically.
Well, no, children are not in any sense of the word owned by their parents. Compulsion should not be possible in any sane voting system, as elections are secret. What remains is that chances are that the younger a person, the more their parents tend to have influence over their decisionmaking, which might be a reason to limit their ability to vote accordingly. But you might have noticed that people don't switch from "no clue how to make an independent decision" to "completely mature and independent" on their 18th birthday? So, if your goal is to limit their political influence according to their independence/maturity, why is a hard cut-off at 18 the best solution?
> Some people didn't want to give women suffrage last century because they figured it would just double the exact ratio of the existing men's vote tallies.
Which is obviously a bullshit argument? You don't want to change who can vote because you fear that it won't change the result of the election? And the solution is to make sure that the result of the election doesn't change? Wut?
> And now a century later we have wives that still vote only to please their husband.
See above, secret ballot and all that.
> But how does that work for kids and sex?
Well, the claim was that the difference between "17 years and 364 days" and "18 years" was not a meaningful difference in reality (I would agree), but that somehow it was impossible to make a law that takes that into consideration, and so we don't have any other choice but to have a law that maps one of those to no consequences at all while the other is life-ruining. Which is obviously bullshit, as you obviously trivially can make a law that specifies that the punishment, say, linearily increases from none at 18 years to whatever the maximum is at 14 or whatever. That would be perfectly objective criteria that statistically map much better to the actual lack of maturity of the victim, without any hard cut-off where insignificant differences in the facts of the matter (and thus honest mistakes) result in massively diverging consequences.
You didn’t address the case where two kids of the same age had sex. If the law cannot take that into account, both are responsible of a crime. Also many states have age difference exceptions as well (so an 18 year old can have sex with a consenting 17 year old); the federal government most definitely has this (4 year delta).
I'm not trying to comprehensively define what does and does not qualify as statutory rape, just explain the general logic behind "minors cannot consent".
I'm sure there's plenty I've omitted; again, I'm explaining why "minors cannot consent", not trying to comprehensively describe statutory rape laws in the U.S.
> The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it.
But that isn’t true in reality for kids/adults close in age, nor is it a fixed line for every jurisdiction in the states. You actually have to know the law.
>> The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it.
> But that isn’t true in reality for kids/adults close in age, nor is it a fixed line for every jurisdiction in the states. You actually have to know the law.
Of course you have to know the law. But the law is well-defined, and you can figure out with 100% certainty whether you'd be breaking local statutory rape laws given your age and your partner's.
I suppose it's possible that there exists an unclear statutory rape law somewhere in the world, but most laws are written to avoid ambiguity. Can you cite a U.S. statutory rape law where it would be ambiguous whether or not sex qualifies as rape given the parties' ages?
Many states have exceptions for people who are married, also age isn’t the only factor that is taken into account (mental ability is as well). There are a lot of little things like that in these laws, but the biggest one is if you go inter jurisdictional (or even extra territorial) and federal law becomes involved (must be under 16, 4+ year age difference).
Anyways, given that the girl Minsky allegedly slept with was 17, I’m not sure why the underage argument came into play at all given what I know about federal law, at least. But then IANAL. Anyways, all the articles I’ve read about Minsky in this affair say trafficking was involved but not specifically child trafficking, so I wonder if the fed’s case was based more around the trafficking and coercion aspects and not the ages of the girls involved
Also, another thing to consider: age of consent is often different when prostitution is involved, so guy could have legal consensual sex with a 16 year old, but not if they or someone else paid for it.
This doesn’t really have anything to do with the discussion we’re having, which is that given a specific set of facts about two person it is possible to objectively deduce whether or not they are allowed to have sex.
If you have an example of a set of ambiguous statutory rape laws, please cite it. Otherwise, I think this conversation has reached a stalemate.
FWIW, “bright and clear” means that a law is objective and unambiguous [1], not that it’s simple or easy to apply. These laws may not be clear cut in that there are many conditions to evaluate, but they are clear cut in that you can deduce with certainly whether or not you’re breaking them.
Ok, I can agree we that. You might still need to be (or have knowledge of) a lawyer to determine if you are breaking the law, but at least it can be determined. I was just against the idea that these laws were somehow simple and easy to understand.
Here, two 15 year olds can have sex, legally. 15 year old and 17.9 year old can have sex. 15 and 18 can't, but do, because the law is demented - if you have two partners, say 15 and 17, as they age, they will first be able to legally have sex, then for a few years they will not, until again, they will.
It should have been "Minors cannot consent, with few limited exceptions", or "minors below the age of consent for the sexual relationship they are having cannot consent."
Two common exceptions are: 1) similarity in age, and 2) sex with spouse, if married.
Exceptions can have their own exceptions. For example, if a 17 year old has sex with a 25 year old, it may be legal for an exception based on similarity in age. However, the law may also prohibit that exception if there is sex between a teacher and a student in the teacher's class.
So martinky24 was wrong in writing "Minor's cannot consent". It's an understandable wrong, as those exceptions aren't really that relevant to the topic at hand.
But jelliclesfarm is also wrong in thinking the argument is that minors are "non-beings". Minors are beings with fewer freedoms than adults. Depending on their age, they can be forced to attend school and to follow juvenile curfew laws. They can be prevented from purchasing alcohol, and from driving vehicles, or having a full-time job.
All of these remove some of their free agency. Just like restrictions on who minors are free to have sex with.
Parent didn't address it because it doesn't need to be addressed.
In most states, the law is not written "it's illegal to have sex with a 15-year-old PERIOD." Instead, the law is usually "it's illegal FOR AN ADULT to have sex with a 15-year-old."
You are correct that -- for states that a) don't have the "for an adult" clause and b) don't have "Romeo & Juliet" clause -- the law as written DOES imply both kids are guilty. And I'd bet the cost of a nice dinner that, in some of those jurisdictions, both kids in a case like that WERE charged.
I think your response is very self centered at best. Feeling of being "`raped` of your free agency" is not enough to make a law unjust. It certainly doesn't outweigh the actual exploitation that was what led to these laws to be written to begin with.
The bottom line is that your agency wasn't removed as a minor, you were just left with the same choice as many other minors, to obey the laws regarding drinking, smoking, pornography, etc. Or to break them in order to gain whatever you felt you were being denied. The laws were written to punish people who exploit minors, and the consequences of those crimes pretty much always fall on the adult in the situation (for good reason).
When I was 17, and unable to vote or see certain movies, or 20 and unable to legally buy alcohol, I definitely felt like my freedom was abridged, but it didn't make the laws behind those immoral, it just made them slightly unfair. And that was for some low stakes stuff compared to sex trafficking or adult exploitation of children.
1. I don’t want anyone to be ‘raped’ by ‘free agency. I was speaking of consent. Can someone be raped while being a minor? Of course. Age has nothing to do with whether one can be raped. One can be raped as a minor just as a 50 y/o ..dare I say..male can be raped. Age also has nothing to do with sexual desire or urges either. A 12 year old boy can be horny and a post menopausal woman can snap shut at the rumor of sex.
Rape should be about consent. Not age.
2. It is infantalization of young adults and taking away their instincts and consequently the ability to provide consent that is confounding to me. Biologically, sexual instinct begins way before puberty.
3. Creating ‘laws’ is a symptom of a society failing to manage itself. Shame and shunning used to work before. Every law automatically includes a legal loophole. Laws make society weaker, not stronger. It is the mass handover of power to the state..power we should have over ourselves as citizens and society.
Human beings may be holding super computers in the palms of our hands, but our instincts are still cave man instincts. The human instinct that seeks sexual pleasure also seeks justice and revenge and disgust.
How many rape victims have been screwed over by the ‘system’ that the law is supposed to uphold?
4. So something is wrong with the legal system that lets more people slip through the cracks by ‘failing’ them. I am not condoning rape.
I am just saying that it is wrong that minors should be deemed ‘mentally deficient’ to give consent.
5. When my body says that I am ready for sex and the law says no, I am being denied my right.
6. Jewish infants are circumcised without their consent. Is that sexual assault or rape? Young girls suffer genital mutilation in the same name of religion. Why doesn’t the law step in and make it illegal?
7. Voting or alcohol consumption are not biological imperatives. Children are..to an extent..property of parents until they can fend for themselves. To curtail freedom to consent by law is actually also curtailing freedom of ownership of their instincts. When did the courts and the state start taking over the role of parents?
8. Let’s take Greta Thurnberg. She is a child instructing adults. Some of us are ok with that. Others aren’t. The same girl if she had consented to have sex with a non-minor while she was a minor in the USA would have been considered ‘mentally deficient’ to give consent.
9. I am not..for even a second..condoning rape. I am just concerned that the advent of an biological instinct when it is earlier than the age of consent is a handicap to a young adult.
What are you thoughts and I hope I had clarified my position.
Laws are made to apply to everyone, not the exceptional person who is sexually mature well in advance of her peers.
Your argument might well be that the age of consent is too high. That's fine, it's arbitrary. But there does need to be one to prevent all sorts of horrible things from happening.
And no, the laws don't prevent everything but that's not an argument that they shouldn't exist at all.
There are no laws against minors having sex. There are laws against non minors having sex with minors.
I am not arguing that.
I am just saying that a minor not being able to consent due to their alleged ‘mental deficiency’ due to age(as suggested by another poster above) is dodgy.
Ok. Let’s take an example of an actual ‘mentally deficient’ person...even an adult. Don’t they have sexual urges and biological needs? Are they capable of consent? What does the law say about that?
Sexual urges are no different than hunger or thirst. I want to know why sex has a more special status than food or water?
I feel like your position would have more traction with me if we as a society were better about enforcing the existing laws regarding sexual assault and consent. Adults in that situation are willing to go on the record and state that the acts were not consensual and no one is willing to believe them. At least not enough to investigate and put their rapist away in a majority of cases. I can't imagine a child would have an easier time of this no matter how mature they seem, but at least with the consent laws, they wouldn't be forced into the same thing that seems to happen with a number of victims where a lawyer puts them on the stand and tries to make them look like they are lying about everything.
That does not mean it is ethical to accept willingness (or whatever) as evidence of consent or capacity for consent. Perhaps in cases like this it is simply impossible to know if that person has given consent. And these laws provide a boundary where that uncertainty becomes overwhelming. So whilst an underage person may have the maturity to give consent. A person in a position of power should never actually accept that.
Wow, wait. I get what your point is, but minors will continue doing it, and it is only with adults who they can’t consent with. Obviously minors can consent in some contexts, otherwise it would be a huge mess morally and legally (if two 14 year olds have sex, do they both go to jail because neither can consent? Also see the mess we’ve got into with kids sexting each other).
Let’s not criminalize kids being kids because of some strict morality code.
Minors having sex with themselves is basically out of scope here. Yes, it varies state by state and some states punish kids for things they absolutely should not be punished for. But we don't need to litigate the nitty gritty details of statutory rape laws.
The case under discussion was a minor and some guy at least a decade older; not two minors.
You pulled that quote out of context; preceding it is:
> He was trying to argue the subtleties of child rape. There are no subtleties.
Virtually everyone knows there are subtleties around statutory rape in general! But you're missing the forest for the trees here. We're not discussing statutory rape in general but the specific instance that Stallman was defending. You're technically correct in that the very last sentence of martinky24's comment was literally inaccurate, but you are wholly incorrect in your understanding of the spirit of the comment and subsequent dismissal of the rest of it.
The subjects Stallman was discussing are not ambiguous first principle pseudo-persons of nebulous or similar ages. They are an old guy and a coerced, underage girl. Period. There is no subtlety here.
I admitted to getting the spirit of the comment in my first one. But the path the comment went down by being so general exceeded the context if Stallman’s point.
Alternatively, the 2 14 year olds can’t consent to the act, but are also not liable for the act?
I think this way of describing it expresses more the position that the occurrence is unfortunate, and all else being equal, best avoided.
To say “two 14 year olds had entirely consensual sex with eachother” seems to possibly express that the occurrence described is not unfortunate.
Also,
If a 12yo and a 15.5 yo did, I think we very well might say that the 15.5 yo committed rape, even though neither person was an adult,
Yet if both were 12, people wouldn’t call it that.
So, I don’t think it is only if one party is an adult. Also if one party is substantially closer to being an adult.
> To say “two 14 year olds had entirely consensual sex with eachother” seems to possibly express that the occurrence described is not unfortunate.
Isn't that just a misreading though? You're applying a connotation that isn't there. Many of us don't associate "consensual" with "A-ok" (e.g. I'm anti-pornography).
Good point.
Though, I didn’t mean to say that there was a clear connotation, just, like, a possible/weak one.
Maybe the insertion of the word “entirely” is what creates the weak connotation?
And that word wasn’t used in the comment I was replying to, so my comment is probably moot.
Except it is also possible for a 14 year old to actually rape another 14 year old, so there is a difference between “cannot consent” and “did not consent” if you believe a 14 year old actually cannot consent.
Though the topic is beginning to cause me more discomfort than it was. Guess I wore through my “discuss uncomfortable topics without feeling uncomfortable” reserves.
Edit: That isn’t a complaint about what anyone else is doing though. I am merely noting my own limitations, and no one needs to do anything to accommodate them in this instance. Continue on as if I hadn’t mentioned them?
If one of those 14 year olds sends nude pictures to the other one, is that not distribution of child pornography? I've certainly read that minors have been charged as such, but I'm not capable of verifying the veracity of those charges (I just honestly don't want to Google for this shit).
And it's especially horrifying because she got convicted because she wanted to try to stop someone else from spreading it all over the school. It was just supposed to be seen by a few close friends.
I don't have answers or solutions, I rarely do. I think this particular debate lives in water that is far too murky for me to want to wade into. All that I'll say is that I think my answer to your question is something close to, "No. Maybe? I don't know. It depends..."
All that I really know is that I am grateful, once again, to have been a teenager in an age before the proliferation of smart phones and social media.
This is an interesting topic that has become more prevalent with rise of smartphones, but has absolutely nothing to do with an adult statutory raping a minor.
There are subtleties about what constitutes a minor. The age of consent varies from 12 to 21 depending on the country [0]. That appears to include variation even in the US.
On the one hand, the law is very clear because there needs to be a clear line in the sand to decide if people get sent to jail or not. On the other hand, there are clearly open cultural questions about what we should get angry about. Pick any standard you like, and the majority of the world currently disagrees.
In my country of Australia we seem to be using 16. So in Australia maybe there was no crime at all. I dunno, I havn't looked in to this sort of law very deeply.
I mean, the assault in question was non-consensual trafficking in addition to being statutory rape. So like, maybe we don't need to first principle this quite so hard? Don't rape people?
I get what you're saying, but minors can and do legally consent under various close-in-age laws, and the age of consent is usually lower than the age of legal majority anyway. I certainly don't agree with Stallman's comments, but the law is subtle.
A 'minor' is a societal construct that varies over cultures and time. In Biblical Jewish cultures this was set at puberty ~ year 12. In some modern Islamic cultures its may be ~ year 9. In japan it used to be 13.
Minors cannot consent because society has removed that right from them.
Now I suspect we may agree on the general outcome of these rules, but I do find these 'religious' arguments distasteful, regardless from which camp they get issued.
> A 'minor' is a societal construct that varies over cultures and time.
Agreed. And if a war, plague, or comet wipes out 80% of the population tomorrow, suddenly "minors" will be 13, and no one of these people so adamant here will bat an eye.
Here's a chance to have a reasoned debate about an important issue, where constructive conversations and solutions could be devised. But instead, the conversation devolves into a flame war.
If anyone is interested in spitballing some type of new novel restrictive grammar to enable having constructive conversations about hot-button issues, I'd love to help: https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/issues/52
I am lost for words...angry and frustrated that this has happened. There have been dozens of things RMS has said in the past that I disagreed with and at the end of the day, I always had (and still have) the highest amount of respect for that man. He is the definition of "harmless as a fly".
There is no defending Epstein. Though I think Stallman has made many valuable contributions to free software, I think he has fallen on his sword on this one for no good reason.
RMS's definition of pedophile doesn't include people who feel sexuall attraction on person who has puberty and is sexual maturity.
I think that's a fair definition.
He also argues that 17 years old has ability to consent.
Since I'm from a country of consent age of 13 years, I agree.
RMS don't encourage to violate the law, merely presenting the opinion. This opinion isn't blaming certain group like James Watson and his comment on race and intelligence.
I guess some people aren't civil enough to discuss theoretical problems.
Except your opinion is as an anonymous person on the Internet, while his was the director of the FSF and a trusted member of an academic community in a public forum. He has to be willing to think about the people and organisations he represents before he opens his mouth and makes them look bad. If he isn't willing to do that, then he should get sacked.
Now he no longer belong to MIT/FSF, he can enjoy his freedom of speech I guess. RMS is and always is consistent. He never bend his opinion and he throw out all the career if necessary for his freedom.
> Looking through the article again reportedly points to the deposition itself. I visited that URL and got a blank window. It is on Google Drive, which demands running nonfree software in order to see it. See https://gnu.org/philos2phy/javascript-trap.html
>
> Would you (not anyone else!) like to email me a copy of the part that pertains to Minsky? say "not anyone else" to avoid getting 20 copies.
Lol even in the middle of this discussion he sneaks some JavaScript hatred in there!
When you've made statements about "voluntary pedophilia" in the past, and you decide to voluntarily wade into the Epstein scandal, that's probably better termed character suicide.
I think it is unfair to hound him over his latest statement about sexual assault. He is absolutely right that the term sexual assault includes actions that are so different that it can be used to unfairly destroy people's reputation. And if you are going to call someone a monster, it is better to more precisely define what type of sexual assault he did.
I myself was sexually assaulted some time ago. I was in an ordinary nightclub, I went to the mens room, and on walking out of the mens room some a-hole decided to slap my ass on the way out. I gave him a dirty look, maybe I should have had him kicked out of the club, but I don't think it was necessary to have him fired from his job or ruin his career.
Yes. That's exactly what she did --- and she's not alone; I've seen many other individuals do the same (after reading the primary source). Whether they've all read too fast, or for some other reason failed to parse the sentence correctly, I have not yet determined.
Probably, but it doesn't really matter because the real damage was done by his comments ~15 years ago, it just took the Internet an unusually long time to notice.
This was the kind of gray area people dealt with on their own and cannot IMO be regulated by law (because it's just barely possible to define). There are limits though but today it's becoming too binary and myopic. Weird era.
Wild that you would conflate a slap on the ass in a nightclub with an underage girl in basically sex slavery being pimped to a 70 year old. And then going to court over it despite all the danger and pain that exposed her to. Do you think those might be very different things?!
The fact that those are very different things was the entire point of the post you replied to.
Conflating "slap on the ass" with "sex slavery" is bad.
Conflating "sex with an apparently legal, willing partner who later turned out to have not been either legal or willing" with "coercing a child to have sex with you" is bad.
I find the volume of the noise being made over whether or not the "entirely willing" bit was quoted out of context by the media for sensationalist purposes — which it 100% was — quite curious. To me, the place Stallman screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that might have constituted rape.
Because that's what it's about: he said, "But is it really?" — literally, in fact — about something which, for legal purposes, his opinion is irrelevant. To wit:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Stallman said that. He went there. He quibbled over whether something constituted rape, as if the Virgin Islands cares one whit what rms thinks of their laws. That's where he screwed up, and people in the thread said so at the time, too. So people now can try to make this shit-show about his being quoted out of context about "entirely willing" — which, again, it was — as much as they want, but that just won't make it so.
This is entirely about Stallman having quibbled over rape, not whether he was selectively quoted in the course of quibbling over rape.
Hell yes he did. Wouldn't you? If I made my own country where "rape" was defined as "sex without first doing twenty jumping jacks," wouldn't you "quibble"?
>everyone admits knowingly slept with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that constituted rape.
So what? I drove 37 in a 35 today, who cares? You can't outsource your morality to the legal system like that.
If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through the VI's laws.
> If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through some country's laws.
It's hard for anyone to do that because virtually everything on this is speculation. The whole thing about Minsky stems from a single sentence in a recently unsealed enormous deposition ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ) where one of Epstein's victims included Minsky in a list of people that epstein's assistant directed her to have sex with. She wasn't asked if sex actually happened with Minsky, and didn't claim it did, she was asked about the dates and couldn't recall.
A witness who claims to be present reported Minsky turning her down and complaining about the advance, additionally on the date that conference was held-- in 2002, Epstein's victim was 18. ( https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ )
But since there are essentially no facts, not even concrete allegations-- people seem to feel free to make up their own version of events which are exactly as awful or harmless as they want them to be.
.... God save you if your imagination comes out different from the angry mob's and you dare share it with others.
Because Minksky has been dead for a few years there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually setting the facts straight, but there seems to be a lot of interest in using it as an excuse to be abusive to fellow humans.
It's not that simple. There are plenty of places where the sets "things that are legal" and "things that are moral" don't intersect. Those are some of the most interesting, challenging questions we will face.
EDIT: And I would submit the offered example illustrates that. Doing two miles per hour over the posted speed limit may not be legal, but it's hardly immoral. Similarly, lying to someone to sway their opinions in an argument isn't illegal, but I don't think that's particularly moral, is it?
I don‘t think it was ‚a man‘ but a close fellow scientist who is dead and can‘t stand up for himself. Which is one reason RMS did not stay away from this fire and one making him speak his own mind - ignoring the other hats he was wearing (but using a lecturing voice). On the one hand it makes it harder to condemn. On the other it is a failure that can‘t be tolerated by high profile figureheads.
> the place Stallman screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that might have constituted rape.
This is where you jump to conclusions and become a part of this charade. All we have are unsubstantiated allegations that do not even say definitively that sex took place. And just based on that, your and the mob's conclusion is "we have reason to believe" ?
I agree with Stallman and everyone else who is extremely skeptical and advises caution. Alas, the mob is out for blood.
You know what, dude? I really, really hope it is just an allegation. I want desperately for it not to be the case that Minsky got sucked into Epstein's shitty web. But the deposition we've seen so far is just that: the only one we've seen so far.
That said, and this is key, none of this is about whether or not Minsky did anything. Assuming he did, it isn't even about whether it was with a minor, or a woman of legal age. It's about Stallman having decided that was a prudent moment and subject about which to "Well actually..." at the world. The whole point is Stallman's behavior, not Minsky's.
In all seriousness: what the actual fuck does Richard Stallman's opinion on what does or doesn't constitute rape matter? Why would he think that was a point that needed his quibbling? Maybe that's the judgement under question.
> In all seriousness: what the actual fuck does Richard Stallman's opinion on what does or doesn't constitute rape matter? Why would he think that was a point that needed his quibbling? Maybe that's the judgement under question.
I mean he didn't just jump in with it out of nowhere. Discussion had already been started, and someone brought up both her age and the location, and declared it as therefore rape (__rape__, with emphasis). This communication was directed at RMS himself, as a rebuttal (bordering on dismissal) to his stance; RMS responded to it, each point in turn.
Stallman is probably a little bit further along the spectrum than you then.
This is a man who commiserated someone for having a baby because it would distract them
from emacs development. He has been playing social minesweeper for decades and finally lost.
RMS is indeed a visionary and deserves credit for the good works he's done in his life. He may also be a bad person. Or maybe he's a good person who shows extremely poor judgment. I don't really know much about the allegations so I won't defend him or persecute him.
But this is a good move for FSF. RMS must have realized (or been made to realize) that he is now a net-negative contribution to FSF.
A good comparison by another poster today here between RMS’ statements on the mailing list and the lies the news media published about them https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990426
I wonder what this means for the influence of the FSF in general. And will RMS stop working on emacs and other software?
> and will RMS stop working on emacs and other software?
Has he still been contributing code? My impression was always that he wrote the first versions of emacs,gcc,... many years ago, and many other people have taken over in the intervening decades. I'm quite confident he isn't working on gcc anymore.
I knew he no longer works on GCC and many other projects but I thought he still contributed to emacs. Looking at the recent commits on GitHub, it appears I was wrong about that.
Did he have mainly a supervisory role at the FSF or was he just giving talks lately and no longer actively contributing?
I have no doubt there will be one of these incidents where the mob mentality that is out for blood leads to catastrophic consequences. I have a hunch that perhaps then people will approach these situations with at least a bit of caution. The guy messed up, but it does not change his contributions. When is his punishment going to be seemed sufficient?
All this happens because he tried to make his friend look less bad, in a situation that most people will try to keep a good distance.
Things we take for granted today wouldn't exist without this man. To name just one thing, gcc. Yet people are more eager to punish him for what he said than to praise him for what he did.
This is actually the best outcome for the FSF. Unwittingly, the FSF might now need to find a leader who isn't a known weirdo/creep who's "genius" people merely tolerate. This might be the best news for FSF fans like me.
I kind of agree. As another free software fan, I've been uncomfortable with a number of things that RMS has been doing. Free software is good, no compromise/no surrender is good, and fighting against proprietary software is good. Doing it the ways RMS has been doing it is often not good.
Mine is just a particular case, but as a mathematician I was attracted to computer science (as a legitimate field with important real-world effects) thanks to a talk that RMS gave in my university. First I liked his personality and sincerity in the way he explained the printer driver story; then I listened and read everything else he said (especially "the right to read") and it ressonated with my thoughts very powerfully. I guees the same thing happens to many people.
When will someone make a Licensing Agreement that strictly excludes the thought police. It's seriously ridiculous that anyone thinks it is important to criticize with a microscope every single thing someone says, some people think out loud it's called discourse. There are quotes from antiquity that it is the mark of someone truly wise who can seriously consider an idea and either accept it or reject it based on its merit, the point being if you can't even bring up something as a topic of conversation that is mentally handicapping yourself.
People will seriously have to reconsider these arbitrary rules when every single word we all say is recorded from birth. That day is not far away.
How Orwellian the situation we have built for ourselves.
My other comment was censored, I just strongly disagree with the cancel culture that led to Stallman's resignation.
The person Sarah Mei seems to be leading this fight against Stallman even going so far as renouncing the concept of free software and the GPL because of the association with Stallman.
This is entirely wrongheaded, you can agree with the concept of free software and the GPL and disagree with the political views of Stallman. Personally I don't agree with Stallman's political views but he is right on the issues of software freedom and without that I don't think we would be where we are today, having legally protected operating systems, compilers and so forth free for anyone to use, study, or improve upon.
Some people here seem to need it explained why RMS's comments were wrong.
- Minsky is accused, by a credible victim of a non-credible, convicted pedophile, of receiving sexual contact with a woman who was underage at the time, and who was dispatched to him as part of her employment.
- RMS says the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to Minsky as entirely willing. He also says that the difference between 17 and 18 is a minor detail and it's an injustice to refer to it as a sexual assault.
- RMS fails to understand that an adult with a teenager is unacceptable creeping due to the imbalance of power in several different ways, in this context he's right that 17/18 is a minor detail because both are unacceptable. But 17 is also illegal. What if he didn't know she was 17? Irrelevant because he surely knew she was a very young woman, and by implication relished the power imbalance rather than properly backing away. In fact, Minsky should never have accepted friendship with Epstein who was clearly creeping on teenagers in a completely overt way. And RMS shouldn't be defending it.
- RMS also fails to understand how the employer-employee relationship compounds this with yet another axis of undue power, and how these together make the presentation of being "entirely willing" impossible to tell apart from having no choice. This impossibility is why age of consent laws exist even though teenagers can speak and express their opinion. They don't have the structural power to speak freely. To be honest, 18-year-olds don't either. When someone has sexual contact with someone who has no power to say no, that's sexual assault, or it's rape.
- By taking the side of a man he knows, who was doing wrong, over a woman who was vulnerable, and by brushing off the implied possibility of coercion, RMS shows that he is part of the systemic problem of sexist, exploiter-friendly men in tech which the Epstein scandal has uncovered.
He doesn't understands power relations because he ignores them. He doesn't bend, which makes him a general outsider of society, but he expect other to act in the same manner, of not bending, because he doesn't understand social ties.
There are various few occasions that you see RMS bending. Like plane travels (which require IDs), that he just does when he needs to cross oceans. So to him, a person that dd something because of a power relation with an employer is just weird.
He "doesn't bend" because he's never had to. He's been able to leverage his privilege into a lifestyle of not bending.
You know what happens to people who "won't bend" and must? They break and die. So people in dire circumstances learn to bend.
Not personally being in dire circumstance is the luck of the draw. Not considering them, or playing "I wouldn't bend" and belittling them, is a refusal to care.
> At least Richard Stallman is not accused of raping anyone. But is that our highest standard? The standard that this prestigious institution holds itself to? If this is what MIT wants to defend; if this is what MIT wants to stand for, then, yes, burn it to the ground…
…Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the ashes.
Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign
If this isn't literally "revolution [of free speech and thought in cyberspace] devouring its' children", then I don't know, what it is.
It is unfortunate. I hope that what Stallman brought to the world due to his personality is not overshadowed by this. I think that the people who, for lack of a better term, are frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to attack him don't have a true understanding of the degree to which free software has changed the world, powering companies and huge parts of the economy. It baffles me. Maybe they just don't care. I'm not sure, but I feel that he is being wildly misrepresented.
Someone tried to intimidate him saying this exchange will be leaked to the press. Stallman answered people at MIT should seek the truth without being afraid.
What sad times we live in! First Linus, now Stallman...
Can anyone please provide context on this? Why did RMS feel the need to personally step in and weigh in on the Minsky allegations? Was it indeed just carelessness on his behalf, as many are speculating? Or were his comments part of another conversation inside the FSF that has not been made public?
I've read the email chain that's been circulated but it does not go back far enough. It's the "comments about comments" discussion.
I'm re-reading it now. Maybe I'm just not able to follow the text-based email chain format, but it doesn't seem to include RMS's original email with his comments except quoted as part of another email, which leads me to think that part of the conversation is being covered up. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
I don't believe rms is seriously in favor of child sexual exploitation, but that's a red herring.
The concern for me is has been the accounts of far more directly-relevant behaviour, such as (iirc):
* repeated phone calls to someone from different phone numbers
* leering
* breaking the ground rules for an event, and justifying it on the basis that he's personally exempt from any rules
* singling out a teenage girl attending one of his talks (as in "oh wow, a GIRL")
* single her out again while telling his questionable 'EMACS virgins' joke
* saying in an interview that he didn't know any women who have contributed to GCC, when there had been at least 4
It all adds up to several accounts of people saying they've left the free software movement (or avoided it entirely) because of his behaviour combined with his stature. As a community leader who supposedly leads by example, he needs to do better, and if he doesn't, the community needs to hold him accountable. That's happening now.
Personally, I think this is a good thing, and I'm glad that he's made the decision to step aside (even if under pressure) rather than fight bitterly and see the community divide along these lines.
It also seems like a good opportunity for him to pass the torch and see what happens, or at least take a long hiatus to get some caring advice and to sort himself out, like Linus did last year. The FSF will eventually need to become an institution that can carry on its mission without him, and this will be a good test of that. If things go off the rails, he can pen another manifesto and I'm sure a bunch of us will read it.
Anyone who has actually read the email thread and considers it a defence of sexual assault, the topic of the thread, is as intellectually bankrupt as the media witch hunts rms was warning about and fell victim to.
We should be all concerned that media witch hunts like this can in act such results. It is abhorrent that any discussion that triggers a progressive dominated media can destroy people's lives.
Social media mobs are not the the root problem that we should be concerned with. They are just a byproduct of a bigger issue which is control of the major media outlets by big corporations.
It is in their best interest to polarize the society, ideally along some bullshit problem or identity (e.g. men vs women, old vs young, white vs non-white). This way people can release their anger and waste their time on pointless discussions (while consuming ads) instead of realizing the system is rigged and they are actually being screwed by the wealthy oligarchs.
There was some irrelevant quibbling about how accusations are worded.
Then there was the speculation that the seventeen year old girl who is accusing his 73 year old friend of a sex crime would have appeared willing in the exchange with the implication that this apparent willingness made the situation not Minsky's fault.
Doesn't matter if it didn't happen, defending statutory rape like that is really inappropriate, and with a ~60 year ago gap it doesn't really matter about the details. It was a very creepy situation and indefensible.
Stallman was defending it, it wasn't just some intellectual problem with the wording of accusations.
Not a witch hunt, not a victimization of an innocent intellectually curious man, it was a measured and reasonable response to a very inappropriate conversation.
>, defending statutory rape like that is really inappropriate
See, the thing about statutory rape is that it is illegal, and sexual assault is also illegal, but (surprisingly!) that does not mean that they are the same thing. (It is left as an exercise for the reader to see if this applies to other pairings like, say, "public drunkenness" and "murder in the first degree.")
Stallman was not "defending statutory rape": he was saying, "Words mean things, and the words "sexual assault" suggest an image of 75-yr-old Marvin holding girls down and raping them, and that it is unlikely that that, you know, actually happened."
>It was a very creepy situation and indefensible.
Oooh, so creepy! Too creepy to think about, even! Nazis were pretty creepy: let's accuse them of violating the CFAA, before there were computers! Anyone defending them against this is defending Nazis, and worse, creepy Nazis! They are likely creepy as well! This creepy stuff seems to be contagious...
One would have to be obtuse at best, malicious at worst to characterize Stallman's comments in the leaked mailing list thread as 'defending statutory rape' in any way.
Politics is sports and this is a chance to see which jersey you happen to be wearing. Personally, I find one side is actually attempting to argue from a logical standpoint whereas the other is concerned about the emotion evoked by the situation. This is apparent because you will be labelled insensitive if you attempt to point out the flaws.
I don't know what the correct standard is for an organizational leader when it comes to this stuff, but I don't understand why they need to inflate Stallman saying "presented herself as entirely willing" to him saying she was "entirely willing".
Regardless of Stallman's opinions, whether perceived or actual (I couldn't care less about his non-tech commentary), his poor communication skills have long made him a subpar leader.
The blog[0] that started it is a disgrace, the only value they act on is spite. The movement they claim owner ship should reject any association with them, I do.
> our movement will only be successful if it includes everyone. With these as our values and goals
> We call for Stallman to step down
When there is significant new information in a major ongoing story, standard practice is to have a new thread about the latest development, and let the earlier thread fall off the front page.
Stallman's career of relentlessly pissing upwind is ended by a disagreement on the implications of the phrase "presented to". A weird time to be alive.
One thing a lot of folks are missing is that this was not an isolated incident; the fact that this is the straw that broke the camel's back isnt' that important in the grand scheme of things. I made the same point in more detail in the comments for the article about his MIT resignation:
The most alarming thing about witch hunts like this, is that big social corporations have all the means to control which panic will spread or be shunned. And if Stallman's FSF colleagues endorsed the panic and pressured him into resignation instead of protecting him, it might mean that FSF has just lost it's independence from corporate power.
Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.
In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
>>Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it in the Virgin
Islands.
>Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17'.
>I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
Stallman is a revolutionary. In our dystopian times of surveillance capitalism, he has spent his life trying to fight for a utopian alternative. He is a hero and this reaction is completely unwarranted.
The man is famously eccentric, but he is not evil. Posterity will not look kindly to these events.
You know, I keep seeing everyone saying getting rid of Stallman is a good thing for the FSF.
For what it's worth, I think it is a tragedy.
The man is an idealist who has stubbornly managed to hold on and thrive in a pragmatist's world.
There are too many claims to which he is a shining counterexample to the assertion that "Nobody really does that!"
So what if he's a bit of an odd duck? Show me a good programmer who doesn't have quirks! MIT is, in fact, famous for their tradition of living with, and embracing unconventional behavior, while still furthering the State-of-the-Art.
The Free Software Foundation, which has accrued greater and greater entrenchment and influence by non-free software makers and projects alike has always owed to Stallman at least a degree of toleration and begrudging due considering the movement basically started with him last I checked.
I read through the email chain in the Verge articles. It's enough even redacted to give me a solid enough basis from which to say there was nothing untoward about Stallman's posts. I got out of it a caution to read only into what was actually written down, and to avoid letting an unproven narrative whisk the entirety of a man's career away until all the facts were in. At a later point he even states he's read that poster's sources and was unable to locate any evidence conclusively saying that Minsky did anything against her knowingly, and if anything happened, while still being a crime, characterizing it as assault adds a layer of meaning to the accusation that is not immediately obvious from the presented evidence. He's even open to the possibility he hasn't seen something the emailed had, tried to find it, and asked if they'd be willing to send him a copy due to hos commitment to not trafficking services dependent on abusive practices.
If that gets you foisted on the stake these days, I think the Spirit of Salem must be blowing through Massachusets, and it's discovered the fires of the Internet burn hotter than any mere log.
I do not see a malicious intent or an attempt to defend/justify what may have happened to those women. Only an exhortation to not get ahead of what results the System has actually managed to discover as fact.
As the last poster in the email thread the Verge decided to post mentions, as Scientists, we must ask those pesky inconvenient questions which seem to so stifle the actions and catharsis of following our passions, and seek only to know the truth.
And from what I was able to read in the minutes I can dedicate,it is far from a sure thing, but misrepresentation off the character and context of the conversation has already spread like wildfire.
I hesitate to even post this, because to be honest, if people can turn Stallman of all people into a Pariah over just those two emails, heavens above, I'm not sure there are many others behind the cause who can say as honestly to have practiced what they preach to the degrees he has. What chance do the rest of us have? That is exactly the type of chilling effect that this type of behavior and manufactured outrage, combined with the uncertainty of knowing from whence it may come is so adept at propagating.
There is a point where hysteria, and the flames of the passions must stop. Ruining a person's life and reputation for anything more than what can be proven is one of them. That doesn't mean I'm trying to cover up harm, or protect pedophiles. It means I'm committed to the System, due process, and the tenets of rational scientific inquiry.
It is not appropriate that any person should be hung by any segment of the population for endorsing letting the chips fall where they will, or asking to have more compelling physical evidence provided.
The world post 1980 has seen more than anyone would like of wrongdoings not punished as thoroughly as they may needs be, but it is not in anyone's interest that the System be any looser in the Standard of Evidence to be met before officially taking action against someone. No one should want to let slip the Dogs of War in that regard, especially given the number of lives that have been given in ensuring a country existed where that was explicitly prevented at great effort from being possible.
Good luck, Richard. I pray you and the movement survive this without irreparable damage...but I'm not even sure the damage isn't already done.
I hoe that the moderators will crack down on the outrageously defamatory statements being made on this thread...
If the aim of HN is to run a better forum for discussion then lying in a defamatory way about people should not be tolerated as part of civil discourse.
Stallman was questioning an absolute statement by using some logic and common sense, building a most-likely scenario for what happened - which could maybe better reflect the situation based on knowledge he had about the deceased.
He did not transfer the guilt to the victim nor defended anything wrong that Minsky may have done.
This scenario seems entirely plausible for me. The deceased is not here to defend himself, so I guess it's up to his friends/family/coworkers to defend his reputation.
Also, about the age of consent, I find it ludicrous that a number of people do not know the age of consent on most of the western world is usually 16 or less. Some are even saying "some european countries still have 16 or 14 y/o as age of consent..." as if the age of consent is going to increase in the short term.
Spoiler alert: USA is the odd one out, and it's more in line with Turkey than Western Europe. Let this information sink in for a moment.
And this is why you NEVER get politically involved in anything and learn to keep your political comments to yourself. Nothing good was going to come of this no more how he put it. Bottom line is he should have just kept his mouth shut.
I’m allowed to criticize him after reading what he actually wrote, right? Because I did and came away from it with the conclusion that he’s evil and shouldn’t be anywhere near anything resembling a leadership position.
He is many things, and shouldn't have been in a leadership position for a long time, but he is definitely not evil.
I have a hard time even imagining how you reach the conclusion that he might be evil. Even the worst out of context headlines on his recent quotes just put him in the "gross" category.
I say this, and I'm very glad he stepped down. I've argued for years that he should have stepped down a long time ago.
Evil is fundamentally a lack of empathy and I see no empathy from this man. He’s not a cackling crazy
Hitler figure, but he seems to have a difficult time figuring out just what the problem is with having sex with children and with child slaves, and chooses to dedicate a great deal of mental energy defending the more powerful people in this scenario.
The definition of evil is always … a heated topic, but the common theme usually is that the suffering evil inflicts is not accidental.
In your reply here, you're describing sociopathy. I wouldn't describe Stallman as a sociopath but I could definitely see the arguments for it. But even the most repulsive things I've seen this man say/do never got me to think "Yeah, this dude wants others to suffer".
Edit: And no, I don't think he has a difficult time "figuring out what the problem is".
I think that’s a facile Hollywood idea of evil. People like that exist, but plenty of evil people don’t care about suffering.
A psychologist assigned to the Nuremberg trials put it better than I ever could. “In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949)
I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Fair. Putting aside the word itself though, I don't think Stallman lacks empathy.
What he does lack, IMHO, is a huge amount of basic, day-to-day understanding of how the world works. Such as the power dynamics of teenagers in the modern world. Things he's completely incapable of understanding because he chooses to isolate himself and live in an absurdly eccentric way. For fucks sake, have you seen how he browses the internet? [1]
He chooses to live that way because, for him, every single issue seems to be a hill he's ready to die on. It was only a matter of time until the hill was bad enough for this to happen.
Still, I maintain he's not evil, neither by your definition nor mine.
Thus, American justice system is evil? Law knows no empathy. Politics is even worse. Media didn't consider it worth it a split second of thought to gauge impact on life of this man.
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
>Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
It’s enlightening that the mob that uses Apple’s locked down devices (which is “cool” instead of “gross”) is able to fire RMS over his comments on semantics; The Nash equilibria are clear.
I just want to say that I’m glad consequences are coming to people who behave badly. We can’t as a community or profession let these people dictate the tone for the rest of us.
Where can I see a link to what he actually said? As usual everyone is giving their own interpretation of his controversial remarks with their own spin.
People going on about how he made some harmless comments which have been misrepresented have no clue about how toxic RMS has been for decades. The latest comments (especially coming while the nation is still reeling from the Epstein affair) are the absolute tip of the iceberg. He has been openly sexually harassing female staff and students for a long time now, and has been tolerated or enabled by other powerful figures. Getting booted from his positions was a matter of when, not if.
I read the "citations" and I was left feeling a little skeptical, added to the fact that the daily beast is not considered by many to be a credible news outlet. Regardless; The tone of this article itself uses such emotive words that I would struggle not to define it as a hit-piece.
hackernews puts a high emphasis on civility, so I’ll be succinct because I find what you said to be absurd.
We do not take for granted that every website is 100% truth or fact. And when presented with something that has only emotion and no fact then we are right to dismiss it. This is why we do not link to things like Obama’s tan suit being Marxist and meaning it[0].
I read into it more, I saw only emotive language and some women who called rms creepy 20 years ago, nothing else. And, yes, I find rms creepy (toe skin eating, anyone?). It is not valid reason to persecute. However, I’m totally open to the idea that this man has horrible ideas and opinions about women and paedophilia. But this is not a compelling citation unless you’re swayed by the kind of language the author uses.
For what it’s worth there are good comments on this article here that indicate something rms previously said about the age of consent in the Netherlands being lowered to 12, and he later changed his opinion on that. It’s a troubling opinion that he had, but I, personally can’t get too bent out of shape if someone changes their mind from something problematic when presented with evidence.
Thank you for the civil response. Good primer on the websites as well, so far I've been taking every written word everywhere as 100% truth and fact but your point is something I had never considered before.
If a 66 year old man tells you that contrary to everything he's written on the matter, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong, is that a moment where you wouldn't personally get too bent out of shape about it?
I mean, yes we all change our minds about things. But is there no nuance to it at all? Do you erase someone's entire past as soon as he says "I've changed my mind, child rape is wrong"?
Yes I change my mind on a person who changed their values. Although it’s not as if I change it to be completely 180° from my original estimations of the person.
I think it’s soulless to never allow a person to grow or change when presented new information no matter what age they are.
Or, are only young people allowed to change their minds? Or is nobody?
I mean I’ve had pretty stupid ideas about things ranging from communism as a good political ideology to believing that the UK would be better outside of the EU. But when presented with new information I changed my opinion. I would hope people don’t treat me as a communist or a brexiter.
Could someone please make a comprehensive list of the people and media accusing him of misconduct? It's time to start keeping track of them and being aware of their toxic characters every time we're dealing with them in some way.
I move that we flag and bury this thread now. It's choke-full of flames and it has the highest level of personally abusive comments I've seen in the last few months on HN. It's getting like reddit in here.
I just don't think we can discuss this issue sensibly, even on HN.
If you read the infamous CSAIL thread you'll probably see that there's nothing wrong with it. This is a rather tame argument between civilized people. I'm very sad that they got him for this ridiculous thing.
Question for those who think Stallman getting forced out is great news: There are people in this forum arguing that Stallman's statements weren't that bad. Should they be fired from their jobs?
The key issue at hand here is that people in leadership positions must be held to higher standards. Doubly so when they act as a very personal figurehead and spokespearson for the community they represent.
This is a sad day for the FSF. Yes, he's got bad opinions, but he's also done an incredible amount to serve the Free-as-in-Freedom community. He's a Great Man, but not necessarily a good one.
They rather just close the FSF, nobody will care once Stallman is gone. Maybe all this fake outrage is nothing more than large companies trying to end open source.
I never thought in a million years I'd see the Silicon Valley bubble become so deranged that they'd reverse polarity. Watching HN eat their own liberal legends like Stallman, at the direction of Fox News and NY Post. This is truly astonishing.
I don't get the impression that the majority of HNers these days actually advocate for Free software. It's not like the GPL is the most popular license, my impression is that the FSF and GPL had its peak growth in the early 2000s.
Nowadays most developers seem to prefer permissive licenses and distributing proprietary software for android/ios. They couldn't care less about RMS.
Just look at how little response Purism Librem 5 update threads get on HN. They're practically dead, and this device is the only modernish GNU/GNOME/Linux smartphone to speak of.
Yeah, RMS is a "nut job" alright. RMS developed the free software movement at great personal cost because he so strongly believed in it that he was intermittently homeless while tilting at these windmills.
Only a "nut job" would make a choice like that.
Joan of Arc was also a "nut job." She was an illiterate teenaged girl who felt compelled by hearing voices to put an end to The Hundred Years War and play handmaiden to the birth of modern France.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
I wonder if those thinking they could do a better job at “being FLOSS ambassadors” are taking their chance right now, using this moral panic to hoist themselves into the voids
I'm so relieved to find that at least on hacker news people can still evaluate this situation with reason. Out there it's a witch hunt and Stallman is now a witch.
RMS is a great man but sadly has difficulties communicating with the wider world. This has been true of many great minds throughout history. It's sad to see it happen to one of my own heroes but I believe history will do him justice if we continue to fight for free software.
I wish somebody would have simply advised him not to speak on such matters because nothing good could become of it. Maybe he needed a PR manager. That sounds awful, but apparently this is what the world wants: carefully filtered speech that doesn't stray far from what people already agree with.
There are a chain of media reports which inaccurately portray what Stallman was saying.
But look past that into what was happening.
Stallman was trying to defend Minsky who had sex with someone, a teenager, nearly 60 years younger than him on a billionaire's private island. There isn't an imaginable circumstance where what happened there was not, even in the best possible light, incredibly creepy.
His intellectual arguments were understandable in a way, but in the context of defending Minsky and in the venue they were wildly inappropriate and indefensible.
It doesn't matter how "great" you are or how socially awkward, any institution should fire you for doing something like that.
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.
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.
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.
There are speech rights that are not protected legally, rather based on culture, tradition, and so on. I don’t know what these are like at MIT, but they are fairly broad in a lot of western educational institutions.
Those aren't "rights", those are "norms." When you engage in exceptional behavior (like suggesting a child sex slave's docile appearance excuses Minksy'd responsibility to not rape kids) then your norms may find themselves superceded.
But ultimately RMS's positon was one of political, not technical, leadership. With no more supporters, the FSF rejected him. Without the FSF, what purpose could he serve at his job?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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]).
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.
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
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?
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?
> 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stallman wasn't defending Minsky, he was explaining why Minsky didn't need any defense with the evidence as presented. That Epstein instructed an underage to have sex does not mean that she did.
RMS points out that she did not ever say that she and Minksy had sex, although the prosecutor implied it, and there was a witness account that Minsky declined and warned someone else about what happened during the event. Pointing this out should not be a problem.
So please look past the media's witch hunt and into what's actually been said.
He also redefined the legal term sexual assault in the discussion. According to him Minsky was at the very least innocent of sexual assault because having access to a dictionary let him conclude that assault implied violence[1]. There are winning arguments to be had, unless we adopt GNU/law that isn't one.
He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. He brought up the definition of "assault" because, as a component of "sexual assault", it colors the term, shifting connotations towards the side of violence.
He didn't redefine the legal term, he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific).
> He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt).
That part of my comment was overly sarcastic. I have to apologize for that.
> He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity.
I would say that the term is intentionally broad and vague precisely because violence is only one of many ways to force an unwilling participant and how it was done is mostly irrelevant to the end result.
> he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific).
As far as I can tell he never actually brought up a more specific term and just disagreed in a rather non constructive fashion against the use of both sexual assault and rape, even when someone explicitly referred to laws.
I read it. I saw RMS defending statutory rape by supposing that the young woman would have appeared willing when the perpetrator, his friend, was more than four times her age.
Doesn't matter if the accused event happened or not. Defending the hypothetical in that manner gets you fired.
Read it again. RMS wasn't defending statutory rape, he only wrote to not use the term "sexual assault" when there was no evidence of violence being involved, because words have actual meanings and using wrong words confuses the issue.
The problem is with the ambiguity of the term. From a legal perspective, "sexual assault" doesn't require violence but for ordinary people, use of the term implies some sort of attack or aggression. It's only a few years ago that I learned from online discussions that in some jurisdictions the term "assault" has a specific legal meaning that does not imply violence.
Someone on Reddit says the deposition states that a bystander saw Minksy turn the 17 year old down.
However I can’t seem to find the original documents to verify that.
And reading too much about Giuffre, my god. The list of powerful people.
Epstein must of had blackmail on everyone.
Almost like a cartel leader in their nation, he made big philanthropic donations for good press and then kept many of the world’s richest and most powerful people under his thumb.
The media coverage I found of this was actually very well sourced with references to other articles and ultimately the original email thread in question.
The analysis and statements in the articles were often ridiculous and had little connection to the original material (even the article publishing that material) other than exaggerating someone else's article in a perverse game of telephone.
That's one media outlet of very few one's but there's a lot of other ones that have a lot of "he said she said" thrown around. It becomes harder to form a conclusion without sources.
It went from "defended Minsky", to "Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’" to "defended Epstein".
> Stallman was trying to defend Minsky who had sex with someone
I think that he was just trying to be rational. But being rational against a lynching mob is not a good idea (and hasn't ever been in human history).
> but in the context of defending Minsky and in the venue they were wildly inappropriate and indefensible
Would you mind expanding on that? Say that someone claimed that Stalin drank the blood of his victims, would it be "inappropriate and indefensible" to try to debunk such a claim (and thus defend Stalin) in the process?
I'm sorry, but functionally the problem witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults. While I think there is a good argument to be made that kids can and should have control of their own sexuality, suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing."
No one in a position to cause this outcome didn't read the original statements. Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding (or that this was an isolated incident of RMS's sexism, for that matter) is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.
> I am asking you what he said specifically to make you believe that.
Stallman defends a 70 year old man having sex with a coerced child (using the same language he used to defend familial child sexual abuse or other forms of child sexual abuse) because Stallman is a sexist who has never bothered to learn about VAWG.
His "apology" just piles it on - he thinks the problem is not with what he said, but with other people's understanding. He still doesn't get the fact that people know exactly what he said, and they understood what he said.
So wait, I am not engaging in good faith because I read what Stallman posted and did not detect anything that seemed sexist? Is everyone who disagrees with you arguing in bad faith? Isn't the one who "holds forbidden knowledge" on sexists thing that Stallman said regarding the Epstein incident but refuse to say what exactly these are the one engaging in bad faith?
> You can say this, but I'm pretty sure my post history tells another story.
Having read many of your post in threads on similar topics and having replied to a few, I'm sorry to say that I must agree with others that your post history pretty clearly doesn't.
Weird, because at least once we've talked on a feminist subject and I didn't accuse you of this. Musta been a fluke. But just for you, my longtime friend, I'll explain my thought process just this once.
But seriously, firstly dependenttypes pretends not to know "which sentence" we are talking about despite the fact that my post directly references that damning sentence. He then addresses that sentence, then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true? Where does he get that from? A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs, but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape.
Then, dependenttypes draws a distinction (on the sentence that they claim wasn't clear from context), between a woman appearing to be willing vs being willing. But this once again centers the actions of the women and suggests Minsky has no responsibility to recognize things might not be right, as I suspect a rational person might in such circumstances. It centers the women's act of presenting herself as opposed to Minsky's responsibility to not rape kids.
Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations. Similar searches on twitter reveal firsthand accounts of both sexist and profoundly inappropriate behavior.
Upon reading this, it was pretty clear to me that:
0. This person isn't here to talk. They're here to Fisk posts aggressively.
1. This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting is pretty outrageous. Generally, slaves don't have a choice and Epstein was a slaver.
2. This person has a definition of sexism that does not appear to be reasonable, OR they're so completely unwilling to even examine an opposing viewpoint that they can't read the wealth of other sources on this.
3. Given these things, the subsequent claim "I have read these things and found no evidence of sexism" strongly suggests someone who will simply refuse to adopt a reasonable definition or reasonable evidence of sexism as a matter of personal belief.
Note in his posts we don't hear some sort of positive refutation. Rather we hear a negative one: "this is fine what is your problem?" We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..." we hear, "I don't see any evidence of sexism at all."
We're well past the point where any reasonable actor could come to such a conclusion. So I concluded this person is acting in bad faith. This doesn't mean "they disagree with me." This means, "they're not here to discuss the evidence or what people are saying but rather to refute it by any means necessary."
And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.
> firstly dependenttypes pretends not to know "which sentence" we are talking about despite the fact that my post directly references that damning sentence
I can't read your mind, sorry. By "that sentence" I presumed that you meant something that I said in my post.
> He
Nice assumption you got there.
> then addresses that sentence
I guess so. Without my knowledge at least, after all as you said your post "directly references that damning sentence".
> then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults
> and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true?
Not RMS, Minsky.
> A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs
A small minority, yes. In most countries to my knowledge you only need the consent of the teenager that is above the age of consent to have sex with them.
> but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape.
There wouldn't be any point to the age of consent laws if sex with a person under the allowed age wasn't considered at least as bad as statutory rape, so ofc the countries with age of consent laws also have laws around "child rape".
> But this once again centers the actions of the women
If this was the issue with what Stallman said then you should have been clear from the start, rather than attacking a misquoted version of what he said that's easier to criticize on issues that do not apply with his full quote.
Anyway, Stallman used the "presented herself to him as entirely willing" in order to argue against the use of "sexual assault" that they accused Minsky of (which Stallman claims that implies force or violence on Minsky's part -- after all you do not need to use force or violence to have sex with someone who "presents themselves as entirely willing").
> Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations
I never suggested that. I asked about what sexist thing he said in this specific instance. I am not interested on being Stallman's personal defence guardian nor do I follow him blindly on everything that he has ever said.
> This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting
I never tried to imply that. If you are unsure if I am trying to imply something you can just ask me.
> We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..."
We don't hear "that isn't sexism because..." because I have no idea what you consider as sexist in this specific instance. If you decided to tell me what you consider as sexist I would gladly tell you why I consider or don't consider it as sexist.
And a quote from before:
> Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding ... is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.
Since you misunderstood me multiple times during this conversation have you considered the possibility that you might have done the same (unintentionally ofc) with Stallman?
> And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.
I would be interested in seeing what you consider as instances of malicious behaviour by me in other threads.
>> ay that someone claimed that Stalin drank the blood of his victims, would it be "inappropriate and indefensible" to try to debunk such a claim (and thus defend Stalin) in the process?
It's an interesting point given that there actually is a certain strain of Stalin's apologists that reply to any critique of their idol with "yeah, and he also drank blood and ate little children for breakfast".
There is a rational thing RMS was doing, supposing that Minsky's accuser would have appeared willing to him with the implication that in there was a defense for Minsky's behavior (hypothetical or not).
The problem is defending a man accused of statutory rape by saying his accuser appeared willing. Everything else is irrelevant.
And it wasn't a situation where there was the slightest bit of ambiguity. 17 and 73. Billionare's private island.
Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired. There might be a very narrow context in which a discussion of that nature would be appropriate. Where it happened was a million miles from there.
> The problem is defending a man accused of statutory rape by saying his accuser appeared willing
How is that a problem exactly?
> 17 and 73
Would her being a 18 prostitute change anything in your eyes? Because I am pretty sure that most 17 year olds can easily be confused with 18 year olds and the reverse.
> Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired.
>Would her being a 18 prostitute change anything in your eyes?
An 18 year old prostitute is extraordinarily likely to be in that situation as a result of a lifetime of abuse and desperation. Taking advantage of that for sexual pleasure, especially at the age of 73, makes you a terrible person.
An old man taking advantage of a young woman is the issue. One year and tiny permutations of the details which change the legal situation do not change the moral situation that in any similar situation, the old man is a indefensible scumbag.
It doesn't matter if it is a hypothetical or not, defending that old man by saying the victim would have presented herself as willing, is a big issue. Not a witch hunt, not mob rule.
When you grow older, do always keep your attraction within your age? Is it only moral for an older 70+ year-old-man to be attracted to an equally aged woman?
Of course not.
Then, where is the line? If not 18, then, 25? 30? I get why it would be creepy from the perspective of the woman wanting to be with an old man, but why exactly is the man himself a creep?
IMO, all adults are attracted to the younger opposite sex. Men have a biological drive to be attracted to women who will give birth to healthy babies, survive the birth, and live long enough lives to ensure that child is supported.
I'm 30 now. I hope people never regard me as a creep for masterbating when I'm 60 to the teen section of PornHub.
Statutory rape is not "having sex". Even if you make the girl a year older I am not sure the situation changes very much. The power dynamic is not allowing her a lot of free choices.
Twitter has become a breeding ground for mobs and unjustified moral policing.
I started following people based on the technical work they have done and was hoping to learn or get inspired them.
Apart from a very few, every accomplished technologist have started using Twitter and their followers to attack others. This is nothing but the witch hunt from medieval times done differently.
I have interacted with RMS in Emacs developer list, he has a strong opinion and nothing more, nothing less. He is not trying to create a mob and nor is he starting an upraising. If you have an opinion, voice it and leave it. Yes, I agree RMS needed a PR to tread the land mine ridden modern life.
Overall, it is sad to see RMS and his work getting trivialized for totally unrelated reasons.
He was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.
Is that unrelated, trivial behavior that should be ignored?
This isn't a witch hunt, what he did was wildly inappropriate and the number of people defending his behavior because he's quirky and did great things is a little disgusting.
Yes, there have never been cases where young women have sought the company of older men in exchange for power and money. Never. The terms "gold digger" and "sugar daddy" were never invented for these kinds of exchanges.
As for 17, as someone in my 40's, I couldn't tell you the difference between someone who is 17, and someone who is 18, without them telling me or asking to look at their (hopefully non-forged) ID. If she lied (under coersion from Epstein), how could anyone have been able to tell?
You are describing sex work. Both of those are other terms for sex work. Which is fine once the sex workers are of age and haven’t been coerced, but neither of those was true here.
If I'm invited to a private island by a billionaire and offered a prostitute, and she confirms that she's 18 or older and here of her own free will, well, I imagine most unattached people would have trouble saying no in those circumstances.
For me, it would be too much like romancing my nieces, so I doubt I would take up the offer. In 30 years, who knows.
she confirms that she's 18 or older and here of her own free will
The crux of Stallman's argument is that in that case you would be unable to tell if the woman was lying because Epstein would have coerced her. You can't trust what she says.
However, where you and Stallman differ is that you're suggesting is that Minsky probably said yes and did sleep with the woman, and therefore broke the law.
And probably shouldn't/wouldn't be charged since he was criminally mislead in the process of doing due diligence.
And he shouldn't even be held morally wrong in this case either, if we assume that he did his due diligence and had what he viewed to be legal and consensual sex.
I'm human. I can't be unbiased. This witch hunt of Stallman for rationally exploring "what if" scenarios makes me upset.
I don't know Minsky, I don't care about Minsky. All I'm really trying to do is re-inforce how and why Stallman's exploration is reasonable and rational. And, since it's brought up repeatedly in this exploration, why even the courts consider the spirit of the law alongside the letter of the law.
Stallman made a huge mistake: he forgot that he too is biased. Just like Lessig's defense of Ito damaged Ito and Lessig more than if Lessig had just STFU Stallman did the same for Minsky.
And Stallman being his usual amicable self he managed to do so in a way that a reaction was inevitable. If he wanted to do right by his friend he should have pointed out the flaws in the accusation, not to try to find some contorted way to argue that assuming it was true his friend should have walked without consequences.
Lessig falls into exactly the same trap, the fact that it is your friend who does something stupid or despicable does not make it any less so and in cases like that your friends would be better friends if they pointed this out to you. Preferably at a time that it would still make a difference.
Minsky may not be guilty of anything, and Stallman has shifted the debate over whether what he assumes Minsky has done should be legal or not (it shouldn't, let's be 100% clear on that) over whether or not it happened in the first place. And that is not helping at all.
Stallman has pissed off enough people and has been misogynist and creepy to too many people to get away with such stuff, he only has himself to blame. As for Minsky, if you have to rely on your creepy friends to come to your posthumous aid then it would be better if those friends kept to themselves. Minsky does not need this kind of defense. Stallman's misguided crappy little piece got tons more airtime than the statement by AN EYEWITNESS that the whole thing did not happen. As a result Minsky is now forever tainted as though this is an established fact when in fact it is anything but.
I appreciate the wholly subjective and wholly unasked for advice. I'll be sure to give it the same weight as advice given by Hugh Heffner.
I've stated elsewhere I wouldn't be interested, but (not speaking of the Epstein/Minsky debate for a moment) who am I to judge someone for their consensual activities?
>As for 17, as someone in my 40's, I couldn't tell you the difference between someone who is 17, and someone who is 18, without them telling me or asking to look at their (hopefully non-forged) ID. If she lied (under coersion from Epstein), how could anyone have been able to tell?
I've seen this same argument like 4-5 times now in this thread.
I agree, being able to tell the difference between 17 and 18 is difficult, however a line must be drawn and it seems that 18 is that line.
If a girl is 18 years and 1 day old, vs a girl who is 17 and 364, is there a big difference? No, however that is where society has drawn this line.
If you use the argument 18 looks like 17, then eventually people may say 17 looks like 16, 16 looks like 15 etc and is a slippery slope.
Also chances are the girls in question were most likely sex trafficked (Modern day slave trade by another name).
As I've replied to peer comments, if Minsky couldn't rely on his eyes to judge her age, and she says she's 18 (and let's assume a scumlord billionare had the ability to provide falsified documentation backing it up, if he was really there to get leverage over his peers), how is someone to know differently?
It's quite rare that someone who did due dilligance and were criminally mislead to are charged for the crime.
> Also chances are the girls in question were most likely sex trafficked (Modern day slave trade by another name).
The women in question (those in contact with Epstein) were, in no way, a representation of chattel slavery, which is (i presume) what you mean by "modern day slave trade". They were neither 'owned' nor 'inheritable', they were also (by all reports) paid. Slaves are not paid.
The phrase "Modern Day Slave Trade" as it refers to sex work denigrates those who were forced into slavery by men with guns, as well as the subset of women and men who chose to participate in the sex work economy willingly, whether full-time or on-the-side.
Come on now. What other plausible reason, besides being someone's daughter, would a girl that young have for being on that island with these old men? It doesn't take an MIT-calibre mind to ask this question.
If money was involved, even if the clients were willing, it is considered a form of coercion under US law if the girls were under 18. The coercion label only seems to go away when they turn 18.
Where moral comes from is dependent on a time and space. Where it is applied generally does not.
Ignoring those morals which are dependent on location, today's american applies the same set of morals against those on american soil as well as those on chinese soil.
They also apply those morals across time, such judgment on Ancient Greek behavior.
In the same fashion, we do not alter our moral judgement based on the jurisdiction the event takes place in. At least, we do not do so naturally, without additional effort. If this occurred in the open seas, would we hold our tongue? In a country where no such laws exist?
Legality is also hardly a strict mapping of morals to rules, with complete coverage of what we're trying to express -- if it were, there would be no need for judges; we could simply feed the evidence into an algorithm and spit out the result. And the arbitrary flip from legal to illegal, by virtue of a day, is hardly the concept we're trying to morally express through the law. But for practicality, a strict deadline was given.
Hell, what's your argument? That because morals are relative, there cannot be any discussion of it? Morality precedes the law; You don't make a moral judgement by referring to the law.
My point is that morality actually has a jurisdiction. It isn’t as well defined as legal jurisdiction, but it does exist.
China is a great example where the morals are very different. Barring a few extra territorial laws (corruption, child prostitution for Americans), the jurisdictions are disjoint.
Again, the provenance of a particular morality is bounded by space and time, but the application of it is not; the american judges the chinese with the american morality, irrespective of what chinese society might say.
It is valid, and normal, to discuss morality of actions occurring in different places, without including the morality of that place itself; in this case, stallman isn’t talking about the remote island’s morals, but the morals of where he is and how it applies to events elsewhere
Laws also have two components - the spirit and the letter of the law. You can violate the letter of the law (for example sodomy) without violating the spirit of the law (preventing a sex act the recipient views as degrading). And as a result, you aren't prosecuted. The flip side is also true - you can also violate the spirit of the law, and not the letter of the law, and be prosecuted.
Sodomy laws aren’t prosecuted because they are all considered unconstitutional, not because some spirit of the law isn’t being violated. In an ideal world, they would have been cleaned up along with other archaic laws still on the books.
Not really tech related, but... is there an age limit now on men and women having sex? Just trying to gauge the lines being drawn in this age of moral relativity.
1. As long as women or men are adult deemed by society (for example: 18 years old), anything is fine, even if 18 year old woman paired with 74 year old man. Age of consent rule.
2. A man should not date a woman younger than his age / 2 + 7. So a 74 year old can only date the youngest woman with 44 years age. Creepiness rule.
3. A man should not date a woman younger than 25 year old because the brain is not fully formed until 25 years age. Unless the man is more or less 25 year old himself. So a 74 year old man can only date the youngest woman with 25 years age. Brain fully formed rule.
Of course there are edgy case rule. We call it Romeo-Juliet rule (no more than 4 years difference). 16 year old woman should not pair with 74 year old man but if the man is 18 year old, that should be fine.
It doesn't matter if it didn't happen, RMS was defending Minsky in the situation that it did by saying the girl who was less than a quarter of his age would have appeared willing.
Defending statutory rape, even hypothetically, will get you fired.
> Defending statutory rape, even hypothetically, will get you fired.
IIRC Stallman did nothing of the sort. The only thing Stallman said was that the accusations correspond to statutory rape.
In fact how is Stallman supposed to have defended statutory rape if he was the one raising the accusation of statutory rape? Some random virtue signaler started making up accusations of sexual assault and Stallman chimed in stating that the description actually represented the crime of statutory rape. How is that passed off as a defense or apology?
Even if it did happen, it may not meet the bar for statutory rape because the girl was 17.
So now you've crucified an innocent man, for offering a defense of his friend, who may also be innocent of what he's accused of, when what he's accused of may not even be criminal.
The TV tropes article on value dissonance makes an interesting point on this:
"That the age of consent is 16 or less in most of Europe but 18 in some US states gives rise to some dissonance when discussions arise about the attractiveness and availability of 16- and 17-year-olds. 16 is actually common in the US (30 states out of 50), but not many seem to realize this- probably because it's 18 in California, where a lot of the US entertainment industry is based."
Tech industry is also based in California. This is a California morality issue not an American morality issue, there's no US wide agreement on what is an acceptable age of consent.
Note that while the age of consent for consensual sexual varies by state, if money or trafficking is involved (prostitution), it jumps to 18 by federal law.
> In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
I think it is a reaction to the politicization of society. A lot of people recognize that there is a polarization of society, but they don't want to become involved in a culture war or war of words, so they try to maintain their hobby as a neutral zone. That is a good thing. It is trying to find a way to work together with others who have differing views without letting it get in the way of "being friends" with them in furthering a good cause. You don't have to support the red team, or the blue team, you can just support the tech team and work with very different people without letting that get in the way.
"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 accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference
reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem.
(See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...)
Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in
some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
Only that they had sex.
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.
I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it
is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a
specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the
criticism."
Did RMS did anything like that? From my quick search it seems he just defended by email a dead professor that had sex with a 17 year old. Forced or not, that's hardly what could be called a child, as it's a few years older than the age of consent in most of the Western world.
Society IS political by its very definition. When you live and act in a society, you're taking a political part, because politics is just how society decides its rules.
What I find deeply ironic is that you probably only have a frame of belief that finds a politically neutral frame of engagement with tech 'deeply disgusting' precisely because of the tech that was created under that neutral rubric - tech that probably would never have been created under a more politically engaged rubric...
Why? Because such neutrality allowed the creation of a space where people could express anything to everyone at a cost that was practically free. If the creators had been more politically engaged - that never would have happened. It would have been locked down from the start.
Now - if you go looking for it - you'll find studies that observe what happens when human group sizes increase. More "punisher" type personalities emerge, applying greater social costs on expression in an attempt to enforce hegemony. I would cite - but feeling lazy.
In response to the ever increasing social costs imposed by such punishers - the ones who created the free for all in the first place, turn more desperately to their stated neutrality... largely as a means to avoid punishment.
The punisher types won't accept this - because they want to root out dissenters hiding in their neutrality... so begin punishing those who don't proactively state their right minded political stances in every space. They apply such punishment for example - by statements of "deep disgust"... as though this hyperbolic reaction is not hyperbole at all; as though the mere act of not engaging is the worst of moral failings.
I would be terrified of such people... I would be terrified of you - if it weren't for the aforementioned irony with which I opened. You just do it cause game theoretically you are predicted to do so - because of the system brought into being by exactly the sort of people you hate.
We deserve you.
Kinda like how the AI in the Matrix deserve the mathematical anomaly called Neo. They can't get rid of it. But they created it... This thing that wars against them, under the heroic illusion of its own agency and righteous purpose.
I have the feeling the state of mind wasn't really neutral in the past, so there wasn't a neutral time that created all this.
There was much more gate-keeping going on in the past. I think this cost us much more innovation and new technology.
My impression is as following:
I don't think we move from non-political to political and from "free for all" to "only the good are allowed".
We are moving from one political strucuture that prevented some kind of people to cobtribute to another.
I'm not sure if this will yield better results, but I certainly hope so.
Also, I think the good tech/ideas of the past shoudn't be thrown away, because if we throw them away the people who created them did bad stuff to other people, the victims did suffer in vain.
But we should strife for creating things in the future with less suffering.
Free software is a political movement. It is impossible for it, or Stallman’s active alienation of women and decent people over a period of decades, to be apolitical. He was a purposefully political actor.
Sorry, but I do strongly believe in this. The work stands apart from the man.
As a kid, I loved Lord Byron's poetry. Later, disgusted at his personality, I stopped reading his works. Still later, now I realise that flawed human beings can create beautiful works. Such is life.
Yea buuuut that's not even what's happening here. People are wildly misrepresenting stallman's position. To me it just seems like a certain subset of neurotypical people discriminating against people who don't see the world through 15 layers of social obfuscation/are actually honest about what they are thinking.
You think people are criticizing Stallman because you think they misread his statement (She wanted it anyway)
I think people are criticizing Stallman because he believed Minsky was tricked (She didn't want but people made here act like it), which sounds dubious to me.
secondly, it's hilarious that it seems you are now assuming that I am claiming that "she wanted it". This just goes to show you are here for blood and not justice.
thirdly, what stallman said:
The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way,” Stallman wrote in the email, “but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.” and to paraphrase "It seems probable that she presented herself as entirely willing and that minsky did not know she was underage"
lastly, as far as I can tell, in the deposition it's not clear that they did have sex, only that she went to the island for the purpose of having sex with minsky under orders from epstein, presumably as part of his blackmail/entrapment scheme
Similar thing happened with me and Michael Jackson's music. I was on an irc channel when someone mentioned one of his songs and I agreed. One of my closer friends said, "you know he's a pedo, right?"
And I started thinking of the kids Michael had sharing his bed and realized that, until then, I had had sympathy for them only in an abstract. Now I think about those kids whenever one of his songs comes on, and you know, I no longer enjoy listening to it.
A bit of a difference here, Minsky was accused of having sex with a what he thought was a 17 year old prostitute. If you go to a brothel and things seem legit, how much are you going to question what's going on. That's like going to a restaurant and demanding to know if they've illegally hired staff before you sit down for dinner.
For one, if a person of sufficient status in silicon valley inquired as to the immigration status of the kitchen staff helping to serve their $1000 meal, and it became public, they would likely be open to the very same type of media slander / twitter mob whirlwind that we are seeing in this RMS situation.
In the 1980s so many films stared teens, as a generation was growing up. We were barraged with moral panics that decried sex. The same is happening again, with another young generation growing up. They haven't grown up yet to realize that some people sell sex, that others steal without repent, and that everyone is complex. They haven't realized that not everyone holds their ideals.
Just curious, why? For example, if one wants to enjoy Picasso's paintings without getting bothered about how he treated people in his life, it is their choice, isn't it? If someone wants to concentrate only on the tech and ignore the rest, that is also their choice, isn't it?
Not saying one view is better or worse than the other. Simply pointing out people choose to get involved at different levels...
I personally try to avoid art from pedophiles and murderer and rapists.
I argue that art always happens in context and one context is who did it. Appreating art from someone who is clearly hurting others can't have done something so important to me to still enjoy it.
If a case is made which has some very rare and difficult scenario I'm not sure what I would do.
I hope you're also avoiding any sort of medical treatment pioneered by people with questionable histories. Or any medical treatment derived from research pioneered by people with questionable histories.
Is art necessarily about enjoyment? Should we not try to understand, if only to try an prevent it in the future?
I think theres a debate to be had over whether they should profit from those actions though.
Also keep in mind that Homosexuality was put in the same box as paedophilia and rape ( probably worse than rape). Social mores change, and are different from country to country. The girl involved was 17 as I understand it, which would be over the age of consent in my country.
Again in my country (UK) the age of consent doesn't vary, sex trafficking is illegal in its own right. So this still wouldn't be paedophilia, rather it would be rape.
My point is I could have consensual sex with a 17 year old, paint a picture and the GP would be happy to view it(?). You could have sex with a 17 year old, get arrested for paedophilia, paint a picture, and the GP would not be happy viewing it. Theres a legal line and a moral line both can change so its weird getting absolutist about it.
To be clear I wasn't aware of the sex trafficking element, I thought this was a question of statutory rape, which would seem to yield very different legal answers based on location.
Edit:
'Interestingly' I seemed to have circled around to making the same point RMS made. Except I'm not denying the rape, and I'm not a representative for another organisation.
The same is true in the USA, sex trafficking is always illegal, but the additional charge of rape will be added if the provider is under 18. Think of it as an add-on that makes the crime worse.
This whole thread has gotten side tracked on statutory rape, when in reality the criminal charges hinge on sex trafficking with age only as a modifier.
I don't have the same reservations about using the work of problematic people, so I don't typically check for that info.
Off the top of my head, an example might be accepting opiods to manage pain, despite the tons of damage pushing the drugs has caused Americans as a whole.
But why you decided to put a line on a person? The surroundings, the social situation, the political situation, the nature, whole universe is a context of everything.
When I started on HN ten years ago, it was only about tech & professional growth. Only in the last few years have the politics and outrage taken over this forum and it “deeply disgusts me.”
Because only certain people are in a position to be able to keep their political opinions private. For many people, the very fact of their life is inherently a political statement. So the "keep political opinions private" crowd is merely the people who can keep their opinions private telling everyone else to clear out.
Especially because if you really believe in just here for the tech and also believe that ideas should stand alone all of this shit should be penned by a pusedonym.
>While I resent most these attacks, the "I'm only here for the tech" stand, many tech-people have, deeply disgusts me.
Is it surprising? How many people here work for horrible companies, and justify it to themselves by simply following directions? In a similar discussion the other day, a user literally wrote that they would have to be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings their company is involved with so as not to interrupt their lifestyle.
>In a similar discussion the other day, a user literally wrote that they would have to be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings their company is involved with so as not to interrupt their lifestyle.
There's nothing disgusting about this, assuming that the wrong-doings are really bad and this would all go public. Society does not treat whistleblowers well. They generally lose their livelihoods when they go public with what they know. So yes, they should be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings, because they're usually ending their careers when they do this. If society isn't willing to stop ruining their careers when they "do the right thing", then society has no standing to call them "disgusting" for not willingly sacrificing their lives for the sake of truth.
I'll never understand how an individual can be so weak as to commit crimes because they were "told" to.
>then society has no standing to call them "disgusting" for not willingly sacrificing their lives for the sake of truth.
A tad over dramatic. We aren't talking about Snowden here; hundreds of HN users work for the major companies doing morally ambiguous things. They aren't going to be blacklisted for spilling the beans on Facebook. In fact, in this political climate they might even benefit greatly.
If you're willing to harm other people in order to avoid potential harm to yourself, it's disgusting, and no amount of "but what about me?" will convince me otherwise.
I never said anything about committing crimes. I'm just talking about people working at these companies. You really think that every single person working at Facebook is a criminal? You have issues.
Do you also think every single person working at an oil company is a criminal too, or should quit or else be morally wrong in your view?
>hundreds of HN users work for the major companies doing morally ambiguous things.
Just about every company in America does morally ambiguous things.
One of the problems of cancel culture is #everyonedoesit. At some point, all of us have niche issues where we feel powerless in our individual lives, yet feel empowered when the mob goes up against individual X for something we care about. I'm convinced at this point everyone indeed does it, from the right to the left and so on. People treat it as a weapon reserved for those they hate and unfairness when applied to themselves or people they like. I'm not sure what the answer is, more empathy might help, but part of me feels like with everything else going on all of it stems from a deeper disintegration in US society where people feel like they've lost control of their own lives. These are just symptoms of that.
To further your point, Trump and Brexit are also symptoms of the same issue. I do not think 48:52 was a coincidence at all, the entire western world has been cut in half it feels. Worrying times.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, but I too feel like they are symptoms, and the longer people take to pick up on that the longer it will take to fix things, if at all.
I'm far from certain RMS's only offense was difficulty communicating, but the "evolution" of his statements as they traveled through the media was terrifying to witness.
Stallman:
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
Selam G.
> [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
VICE:
> Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.
New York Post:
> MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’
There's something we have to accept here, that he could be right.
It could be true.
I'm not saying I agree with him or that I would have said the same things (I'm no Stallman, nobody cares about what I say anyway) but what he said was just the result of logical reasoning
For example if you look at the titles it's easy to dismiss RMS as someone who favours rapists, but in the article he's always quoted in full and the things he said are a bit different
For example quoting the VICE article
> RMS: “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
Well, no, rape is not just a forceful rape, because the law says that minors up to some age are not capable of making decisions on who they have sex with willingly, and thus it's up to adults to be responsible and avoid such encounters. Legally minors can't have a willing sex with an adult. So it's a rape and not alright even if both parties were fully willing, if nothing else then because the law says so. Somewhere else it might not be, but they were not somewhere else. Different cultures have different ideas on what is the appropriate age of consent, and the age is sort of "arbitrary" chosen, but it comes from the tradition and America is very puritan in pretty much everything else compared to Europe, so the same applies to this too. That's just the well established moral norm in the US society, so breaking it is obviously deeply anti-social and evil behavior, regardless of what age of consent is in my country or France or Brazil. Everyone involved was American, so even if you argue against the laws, still American moral and culture norms apply.
> Well, no, rape is not just rape because the law says that minors up to some age are not capable of making decisions on who they have sex with willingly
And that's absurd.
Do we all agree on this?
for different reasons
- 17 years 364 days is any different from 18 years old 0 days?
- Stallman was talking (at the time) about consensual sex, not rape
- Stallman said he found absurd that rape was defined in terms of `minor details` not that rape does not exists. He's not wrong.
> still American moral and culture norms apply.
In USA people should be horrified by Facebook spying kids[1], not about what Stallman thinks
It is, because one is illegal, the other is not. Just like drinking with 21 and 20.99 years is not the same, because you have to draw the line somewhere and it is drawn there. In my country the age of consent is extremely low, just 14. So by applying your logic to that, 13 and 364 days would be OK too? How do you feel about that, not entirely comfortable right? Because you're used mentally to 18 years being the line, and then breaking the law "a little" seems like no big deal. Moving it down to 13 feels crazy. But all the laws are like that, some red lines that it's not OK to cross, little or not. If 18 is the legal age, you just don't mess with minors, how complicated is that really?
I think a window system makes sense. If you’re 19 and your sweetheart you’ve been dating is 17, that’s a lot different than a 25 year old and a 17 year old I think.
I guess it’d make sense to base it on brain development.
I have no idea what the best windows would be to promote the greatest reduction in false positive rape cases.
The biggest thing we as a society really need is a culture where the raped feel more comfortable speaking up. It’d probably be a decent thing to fund testing the massive backlog of rape kits piling up at the nation’s police forces as well.
No solution will ever be perfect so you can only attempt to do the least harm and help the most people in these awful situations.
Improving sexual education across some of our more religiously oriented states would be a positive as well.
Hopefully we keep moving forward. And what would be really nice is if some of these awful people Epstein trafficked these girls to went to prison.
It’s high time the rich and powerful started being held accountable for their absolutely atrocious behavior, whether it’s selling enough oxycontin to hook huge swathes of the population on heroin (the Sacklers certainly seem to be getting a better treatment than your average crack dealer), raping underage sex slaves, or leaking hundreds of millions of Americans social security numbers the rich and powerful seem to laugh and shrug it off.
Canada, for example, has "close in age exception"s. Specifically, age of consent is 16, but "a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person."
- If person is 18 and sex is consensual it's not a rape.
- If person is 17y 354 days old it doesn't matter what the minor person acted like, because law treats it as a non-consensual sex, so it's statutory rape.
> So by your logic 14 and 1 days is ok?
If both persons involved are living in Serbia it is OK. Unusual thing nowadays and to many here (me included) not seen as something morally positive, but some minorities have a different customs than mainstream Serbian culture, so it's fully legal. Most of Europe has the age of consent at 16, which in my own eyes makes more appropriate age than 14, but law is what matters.
> That's exactly what Stallman did. He never messed with minors.
No one said he did. But he, completely uncalled for, defended someone who did - who broke the law in a very obvious way - and he did it by trying to put the blame on a victim, although her being a minor makes her behavior completely irrelevant from the legal point of view. And that sucks.
> If person is 17y 354 days old it doesn't matter what the minor person acted like, because law treats it as a non-consensual sex, so it's statutory rape
That's why USA are the motherland of mass shootings then...
I'm 18 today, my girlfriend is one day younger than me, it's rape.
What a lovely country.
> If both persons involved are living in Serbia it is OK
But is it OK for you?
Because you implied that I was ok with it...
I'm curious now.
> No one said he did. But he, completely uncalled fo
Like he always did?
Did someone called him to invent the GPL?
> defended someone who did
But he did not.
That's utterly false.
> and he did it by trying to put the blame on a victim
He was arguing that it wasn't not pedophilia but statutory rape.
I don't know why you people love so much to put words in the mouth of RMS, he's perfectly capable of shooting himself in the foot.
It won't be the last time.
It still does not make him someone who argues in favour of rape.
There are two things going on here. (Well, more, I'll focus on two.)
Legal drafting always leads to absurdities. It is not possible to draft laws that don't; the practical need for unambiguous rules combined with complex reality means there are always edge cases.
Illustrating this general fact with the highly specific case of old rich men screwing young, powerless kids is going to cause other people to wonder about why it seems like you're only interested arguing about legal absurdities in this specific context. After all, you could illustrate your point with, say, the catch 22s inherent in the modern debt peonage systems in the US, or how pro-bono plaintiffs are regularly abused for not following rules they have no access to see, or a nearly endless parade of other examples.
Let's just say that if defending rich old men screwing young kids is apparently your hill to die on, a lot of folks are going to be less focused on your nuanced legal argumentation.
No, it is not just that. You are apparently intent on ignoring the point of my post, so let me rephrase:
If someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum. (It may be a tacky example to use, but that's a different question.)
On the other hand, if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, and, having never before shown any interest in a particular legal argument, trots it out to defend (and yes, that exactly what it was) abhorrent behavior, people are going to take it differently.
> That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it.
You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Well sure. In the US, people can sue over anything they like. But if that's what you meant, I still have no idea what "charges" you're talking about.
> if someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum
that's a big IF
and BTW Stallman notoriously complained about absurd legal result, that's his real life achievement: a legal framework for free software!
that's his bread and butter.
> if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal,
that's false premise
> You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them?
Yes.
Because "defending rich old men screwing young kids" never happened.
I think the poster you are replying to is saying that rape is rape not because of laws, but because of the nature of the act. A 17 year old who has sex with their 18 year old partner, willingly, will most likely not refer to that act as "rape", even though by law the 18 year old has committed that crime. Had they waited a month, it wouldn't be a crime, even though it is doubtful how much more "able to consent" the 17 year old would have been in that scenario.
perhaps I misunderstood, but to me it sounded like the reasoning that it's not rape if it was a willing interaction. But it is the rape, because the law says that minors can't willingly get into it. It's like getting a little kid drunk and saying: well, I didn't force him to drink, he did it willingly. It's not acceptable. You as adult are required to know better.
Americans have discarded "Mens rea", guilty mind. If you go to a brothel and the owners tells you everyone is 17, and everyone looks 17, I think your do diligence is done.
I don't have the context of the original quote, but from what you wrote, none of those are inaccurate. The most common problem with human trafficking is that the trafficcer places the victim in a position where they are or appear to be willing. Normally, they would not be trying to escape every moment they have. The misunderstanding of this is why people don't like the comment.
So what you're saying is that the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing but that she was coerced into doing so?
I tend to agree, and I suspect most people would, including Stallman.
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing but that she was coerced into doing so?
What's missing here is some consideration about the judgement of Minsky. He was a smart and powerful person with a long life of experience. He has absolutely no excuse for what he did and he knew what he was doing.
Nor does RMS have an excuse for what he said and now we're finally seeing that the aloof misanthrope schtick only goes so far. Good riddance.
Agreed 100% regarding Minsky, but RMS wasn't defending Minsky's (alleged) creepery in an absolute sense, he was arguing against escalating one allegation against Minsky into another.
VICE is literally a vice, it's a bad company giving moral drugs to self entitled people that see themselves as superior to anyone that thinks differently.
you don’t need to follow the chain, his first comment is bad enough:
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
stop. stop and think about this. you’re telling me that some random person on the internet can sit there and claim, with a straight face, decades removed from the event, and completely unaware of what went down in that room, that “the most plausible scenario” is that she was willing? are you kidding me? how do you know? he wasn’t there. he doesn’t know this person. and why is this so plausible? on what actual basis here is he making this statement? oh, that’s right, nothing except his own prejudices.
he doesn’t know a damned thing about what happened in that room, and for him to jump to the conclusion that, well obviously, she wanted it, is freaking absurd.
he entirely deserves to get pilloried for this statement alone. he had no business jumping into this discussion, he has absolutely no basis on which to make his judgements except his high opinion of himself, and to go out of his way to engage in a public debate about such a highly sensitive subject when he knows jack squat about it shows an incredible lack of judgement.
You've missed the words 'she presented herself'. You can't separate them from 'entirely willing' without radically changing the meaning.
He claimed that she was unwilling, but was coerced by Epstein into pretending otherwise, and that Minsky was deceived.
That is also, technically speaking, the most plausible scenario. Epstine wouldn't have girls going up to people and reading a script like "I don't give consent, I hate you, you have to rape me now" without knowing anything about the prospect. There would have been an element of acting.
> you’re telling me that some random person on the internet can sit there and claim, with a straight face, decades removed from the event, and completely unaware of what went down in that room, that “the most plausible scenario” is that she was willing?
No, Stallman did not say that. Selam G and the media said he said it, but he did not say it. Not in spirit, not in words.
I understood this as "the most plausible [given what I know of Minsky]".
Also, he doesn't say that she wanted it, but that she might have lied about whether or not she was there willingly (possibly being coerced into lying).
Paraphrasing "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing": "I have a hard time imagining my late friend willingly raping someone."
Not that I think that, even in that scenario, Minsky would have displayed sound judgement by having sex with her (especially given Epstein's reputation and past conviction).
It's disappointing to read many of the comments on HN today.
As we know, rms is a very dear person to most of the Computer Science and programmer community.
Through the years, he's said many shocking things. We've often disagreed with him. He's been extremely stubborn.
At some points it's been comical.
Yet we still see him as a technology treasure, and we should keep this in mind before judging him harshly based on a single e-mail.
rms is actually reacting logically here, yet also emotionally as he's wanting to protect his friend - the late Marvin Minsky. Seemingly by letting go of common sense, and sure enough this is just cause for harsh criticism.
But by simply removing a living legend from his position because he's not able to be politically correct, is far worse in my opinion. (I assume he was asked to leave).
This same lack of political correctness also happens to be one of his strengths. It built his character. It's not perfect.
I don't know what more to write at this point. It's ridiculous and turning into a witch hunt against someone we actually owe a great deal of gratitude.
He was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.
That is what he was defending. The intellectual quibbles about this and that he was bringing up are irrelevant when faced with the above fact.
That isn't about political correctness, it isn't a "witch hunt". RMS did something incredibly inappropriate in an incredibly inappropriate place and was fired. He deserved it.
Stallman's defence of Minsky wasn't in his capacity as the FSF President, and his resignation isn't the result of a thoughtful and considered process. This resignation is the result of a witch hunt.
The thing about accusations is that being accused of something doesn't mean the thing happened. There is a pretty plausible line of evidence that Minsky kept his hands to himself when confronted by a 17 year old on a private island. It is an excellent time to try and defend a dead friend when such doubts are present.
And as a particularly important point - there are no charges so horrible that people shouldn't be defended against them. That is one of the best principles we have in the Western intellectual tradition. "He's defending someone from something serious" is not a respectable counter; you should rethink your arguments.
Part of being in a leadership role is not offending carelessly speaking on topics that will bring bad might onto your organization.
RMS has been a force that has driven people away for a long time. He may be good as a thinker and coder, but he is fucking awful at being in a leadership position.
That's not what happened, no matter how often you repeat your mantra. First of all, Minsky didn't agree to the offer, as evidenced by eye-witnesses. So there was probably no rape in any case, although there could have been one at another time and another party. For all that RMS and you can know, there was none. Second, nobody of the invited people had credible reasons to believe that the girl was underage - Epstein did not tell that to people he invited, for obvious reasons. For all that they could know, she was a young prostitute or a billionaire's "groupy." This is not uncommon at parties of insanely rich people, and Epstein was known for it. Whether you personally like that or not is irrelevant. Read some AMA's by sex workers to understand how this works in reality, you can find plenty of them on Reddit.
RMS also defended the view that declaring every sexual act of an adult with a 17 year old as statutory rape is morally questionable. That's a legitimate viewpoint that has been discussed extensively by lawmakers and legal scholars. Again, whether you like his opinion or not is not important. What's important is that it is ridiculous to insinuate in any way that discussing these matters is somehow morally reprehensible, especially when they concern accusations of a good friend who - for all you know and believe - is innocent.
You are being very dishonest in your posts by distorting the actual situation and what actually happened. I've personally met a guy who lost his job and all of his reputation for a similar matter - every single accusation was ruled out and disproved in court, even with direct video evidence contradicting the accuser's testimony, yet his life remains in shambles.
You can only hope that you will never become the victim of such a witch hunt yourself.
If someone honestly thought, and had reason to think, that they were having sex with a willing 18 year old and it turned out days later that they had sex with an unwilling 17 year old then:
(1) They have committed statutory rape
(2) Their position is morally defensible, although a bit creepy for an old man.
He probably didn't know she was 17. Why on earth would Minsky be risking the law by sleeping with a 17 year old girl when he could just sleep with an 18 or 19 year old? Presumably Epstein had all sorts on tap. It is very likely he wasn't told she was 17 and quite likely that if asked she had been coerced into lying. Stallman has a point here.
And to top it off even if he is wrong it is not such a critical fact that he needs to resign over it. Even if I accept tomorrow that everything I typed today so far was wrong; this is still not an important enough point to resign over anything. It is a moral hypothetical. It is no relevant to my, or Stallman's, daily personal or professional life.
He didn't defend rape. He objected to the use of the term "sexual assault", because the "assault" part connotes the use of violence. He doesn't believe any violence was used by his friend. Based on his understanding of the situation, the girl probably acted willing to his friend, and his friend likely didn't know her true age (can you tell a 17yo from an 18yo??). So he objects to his friend being called a violent rapist when he's really likely only guilty of having sex with a legal minor, while believing she was there of her own free will and probably of legal age.
Finally, your use of the word "rape" is wrong anyway. Having sex with a minor isn't "rape", it's "statutory rape", and that's only in the US. US laws do not apply worldwide. The age of consent varies from place to place, and according to UK residents on this forum, it's only 15 or 16 there. So are you going to tell me that everyone in the UK that has sex with someone that young is a "rapist"? Sorry, no.
> Finally, your use of the word "rape" is wrong anyway. Having sex with a minor isn't "rape", it's "statutory rape", and that's only in the US.
“Statutory rape” isn't usually the term in the law, it's a common-language hedge to indicate that it was (at the time the term was coined) literally rape under a particular set of criminal statutes, but not what some people consider “real” rape.
In some statutory schemes it is exactly rape still, in others it has different formal names (“unlawful sexual intercourse” [Penal Code 261.5] in California law, for instance.)
If it is legally called "rape" somewhere, then those laws are wrong and should be changed. "Rape" is a word that carries a particular meaning (i.e., violent unwanted sexual activity), and conflating it with things that are not violent is minimizing real rape.
"Unlawful sexual intercourse" like in your California example is fine: that's a good way to word sexual activity that's illegal without conflating it with violence.
> If it is legally called "rape" somewhere, then those laws are wrong and should be changed. "Rape" is a word that carries a particular meaning
Generally, that meaning is sex without legal consent. Most state rape laws include sex with adults lacking capability for consent (due to intoxication, disability, etc.), even if they happen to carve out lack of legal capacity to consent due to age to a separate section of law, and do not require violence beyond the violence inherent in sex without consent, though they certainly include nonconsentual sex acheived through violence.
So, while it may or may not be carved out for organizational or other reasons in particular criminal codes, there is no reason that “statutory rape” does not fit conceptually within the space of “rape”. (The phrase “forcible rape” already exists for the subset you seem to want to limit “rape” to identify.)
Why is it wrong to defend someone that is accused of something ? Does an accusation equate to culpability ? Should we ban lawyers and move all court cases directly to sentencing without defense arguments ? This total abdication of reason and emotionally led behavior in the face of certain words put on someone is quite frightening.
He's defending his friend who went to a brothel, there is nothing wrong with sex for money. Maybe if the USA didn't make it so hard to run a brothel less craziness would happen.
He was not defending Minsky, he argued that the crime (which he states he had no reason to deny) as described was not "assault".
His statement was that we should use proper names for crimes.
If I were to accuse Epstein of genocide and you reply "That is not genocide, he was a sex-trafficking pedophile that used minors as blackmailing pawns and more" would that be a defense? It does not look like a defense to me.
> He was not defending Minsky, he argued that the crime (which he states he had no reason to deny) as described was not "assault".
But he was wrong about English usage and about legal usage of the word "assault".
When we're talking about a child who has been trafficked and coerced into sex it's weird to "well actually, is it really assault?" into the conversation, especially if that's based on his misunderstanding of what the word means.
And the effect of his interject was to defend Minsky. When hundreds of people misinterpret him the blame lies with his poor communication, not their lack of comprehension.
Then I apologize on my understanding of the English language.
According to the quote I read of RMS (I did not read the original email fully) the salient part is his discussion where he claims that "sexual assault" as an expression (at least colloquially) implies the use of force/violence/aggression/intimidation/coercion/etc. by Minsky.
He claims that given the official report as true and taking the the claim of the victim as correct none of those (force/violence/aggression/intimidation/coercion/etc.) were likely.
This is independent on whether Minsky committed a crime or not. This is simply trying to properly understand what the accusations are. I honestly have no idea whether this would constitute rape/statutory rape/assault or any other crime, taking in goodwill what I have read it is likely that whatever happened (other witnesses claim to have seen Minsky decline the advances and the report does not claim any sexual encounter, "just" that Epstein instructed her to) Minsky did not use violence.
I actually believe I misrepresented RMS words here, as he truly only said that the violence implied by the word assault was unlikely.
(Also given that by other reports one of Epstein tactics was to lure guests into having sex with minors to blackmail them)
(I hope this is not entirely off topic)
Since I first commented in this thread I saw a regular fluctuation in upvotes/downvtes (which is totally reasonable since the topic is divisive). I wonder how much that is due to a geographical distribution.
In this case the dataset would not be big enough to draw statistical conclusions, but this site (like most forums) slightly suffer from the duality of US-based and international, as it cannot be truly both at the same time.
I can see many reason to never implement something like a geographical indication of which countries upvoted/downvoted (especially as it would contradict the spirit of this site), but in contentious topics it would allow some useful insights.
If this is indeed the case then I mostly agree it sounds like he's arguing why it's called assault.
For example, people will call it "rape" when it's someone underage no matter the circumstance. Having willful sex with someone underage vs. physical forcing them to have sex with you are two very different things. Yet in (most?) people's minds they just call it rape, under the context that someone underage can't properly consent. Ok, but physical forcing yourself on someone vs willingly are still different things. I don't know what to call them, but calling them the same thing is completely disingenuous to the crime.
I'm guessing this is what he was going after? Maybe because when we think of "assault" we generally think it's the physical act of assault, not an emotional or control one...
According to the quote I read yes. He was pointing out that assault (at least colloquially) implies a form of aggression, which he believed to be unlikely given official reports.
Minsky is accused, with no hard evidence. RMS is likely correct that Minsky did not know the girl's age or that she had been coerced. So, assuming Minsky did have sex with the girl, he had no way of knowing that what he was doing was illegal, since it was made to appear to him that this was not the case. That would make Minsky somewhat creepy for sleeping with someone so much younger than him, but not culpable morally. If Minsky didn't actually have sex with the girl, than he did nothing wrong at all.
I don't see it as a witch hunt so much as an intervention. He has done great things in the free software movement, history will thank him for it, but he shouldn't be working as a front-man while launching foot-seeking missiles.
I have a soft spot for RMS like other people do but I don't want to donate to the FSF while he is talking this way as its president.
Maybe he is also a victim of his success. Free software has come so far in the past few decades that it's not as important as other social issues in computing at this point in time.
It is completely stupid standard to only support people that think exactly like you. That's not how communities are run, that's how communities are ruined. So sad that young people completely ignorant about society and social interaction became so unreasonable that they want to punish every single living person.
He is not acting logically, at all. Had he actually apologised he probably could have kept his job. Had he stopped being an asshole any of the times people tried to help him be less of an asshole he could have kept his job and maybe people would have defended him. Instead, he had been so awful for so long that when people came forward with his latest bullshit defending his friend over the child his friend committed statutory rape with, we all knew that it was in character for him.
Imagining his (incorrect, head canon-fueled) pedanticism is “logical” is an insult to logic.
That's not what happened. And I doubt that any amount of apology, even if RMS was sincere, would have been sufficient--contrition is not punishment enough in today's Salem.
Please note that Minksy is alleged to have had sex with the girl, and there is an eyewitness account stating that he declined to have sex. It's important to be as truthful as possible when speaking about this issue.
For what it's worth, lots of us have been trying to have him be removed for being a sexist dirtbag for a long time.
No one really needed media sensationalism to draw a pattern of behavior unbefitting the leadership of the FSF. That some random people overstated some aspects of his Epstein thoughts isn't really why this happened.
It's also a bit ironic you've decided to call it a witch hunt. Witch hunts happened when folks decided to start blaming women for everything without even a veneer of logic or civility. And here we are with a man, having possessed a long history of specific behaviors, being called to account for exactly those behaviors. It's ironic simply because the privileges RMS was exercising are so ingrained in your worldview that demanding he stop treating women like lesser beings is–to you, at least fundamentally irrational and unfair demand.
RMS had hundreds of other controversial opinions. Uttering them did not result in this. In fact, no single act of sexism got him here either. So suggesting that this is merely society punishing a misunderstood outsider on a whim is itself pretty uncalled for.
Are we talking about RMS? If so, RMS wasn't "punished." Folks were tired of his bad leadership and demanded he leave, because he was consistently bad at his leadership job.
You can decide this is punishment and it might feel that way to RMS, but I think we can all agree sexism is a bad trait to have in the most senior leadership position of an organization founded around principles of liberty in expression and action. RMS was bad for that cause, and he couldn't keep his position on pure tenure and prestige anymore.
"...principles of liberty in expression and action." It amuses me that you fail to see the irony in your use of that phrase when it comes to RMS being forced to resign for what he said.
I wouldn't want a person in my team voicing sexists opinions, I would want that person removed from the team. Let alone as a figurehead and leadership figure.
It's a question because I'm trying to assess where the line is drawn, eg. if a person is sexist in their private life, but keeps things professional on the job, should they be punished for being sexist? You've helped draw that line, but where does the line really lay?
There's often not a clear line separating the professional and the personal, and people in a job can feel uncomfortable with a person who has expressed troubling opinions outside the job.
But this is presuming that Stallman's behavior was only personal in the first place. He has a history of poor behavior at MIT and in his roles for the FSF, which definitely bleeds into the professional.
Sorry, But I've been around the block enough times here to know that your actual goal is to label this action as "punishment."
That's a position with enormous rhetorical value to you. You can use that framing to turn a conversation about a man's actions over time into a philosophical question.
That way you can avoid any inconvenient particular facts.
What could it be other than punishment? RMS committed no crime. What he did was offend certain people by having the audacity to speak up on behalf of his dead friend. That was his 'act.' Inconvenient enough?
um...Yes? Don't we already have laws regarding sexism? Isn't there a whole history of sexism law, going as far back as the Romans? Maybe I don't understand the question...
> I wish somebody would have simply advised him not to speak on such matters because nothing good could become of it. Maybe he needed a PR manager. That sounds awful, but apparently this is what the world wants: carefully filtered speech that doesn't stray far from what people already agree with.
The world needs everyone to speak about every topic. If we all self censor then only the extremists will be speaking.
Stallman was extreme, but practically speaking he has never had any power and never tried to gather any. His extremism is characterised by pedantically talking about the logical conclusions of actions and working strictly within and through the legal system to accomplish his goals.
That is a type of extremism that is very uncomfortable when it is used against something held personally important, but it is exactly the type of extremism that we want more of.
Organisers of extra-legal justice mobs are the sort of extremists we can generally do without.
I don't want to live in a world where everyone has to take great care all the time to fulfil the FotM expectations of certain noisy people who believe they're a majority.
Yeah, I want to live in a world where people are afraid to speak what they truly believe even if it's controversial. They should be so afraid of losing everything they just keep their heads down and their mouths shut. Nothing bad ever happens in societies that operate like that.
While I don't agree with everything RMS said I'm not bothered by it either. However, I tend to have the same effect on people when I think I'm just being honest but it comes off as offensive.
It's a hard balancing act, on the one hand people need to be able to deal with facts and reality, even if it's offensive to them. On the other hand we don't want our speech to act as sand in the machinery of communication.
Perhaps the President of the FSF, an organization which has a huge influence on the technical community, should be someone who doesn't have difficulty communicating with the wider world. Strong communication skills being important to that sort of job.
It is not “difficulties communicating with the wider world” when he only hit on women, he only gave women pleasure cards, he only sexualised women in his talks, and he not only refused to take feedback on that behavior, he actively corcumvented any clear rules he was given. He was not acting in good faith.
If he had cared about his political movement more than his dick we wouldn’t be here, but here we are.
>Out there it's a witch hunt and Stallman is now a witch.
There is a new religion forming among those who have largely rejected religions of the past and Stallman is guilty of blasphemy. If he only loses his job he will be far luckier than others who are guilty of similar blasphemy.
> That sounds awful, but apparently this is what the world wants: carefully filtered speech that doesn't stray far from what people already agree with.
No, it is sufficient already to not blurt out controversial things at bat-shit-insanely-bad timings. Similar to how people would be mad at Einstein if he pulled a non-ironic "Yeah, but to be honest he wasn't THAT great" a friends funeral.
I don't like mobs and I lament the fact that one such important figure in computing has such difficulties making himself understood. But that does not mean that the world has a problem somehow. It just happens to be a world that is not fine-tuned to Stallman-communication and that values reducing sexism higher than technical accuracy. Some people don't work that way, some people get therapy to allign themselves, some withdraw from society, some manage to get by. Stallman happened to fall on the friction side of things this time.
The world doesn’t need to be one of two extremes, either filtered everything or say whatever you want.
Words have consequences, and while you are free to say whatever, others are free to react to it too. You don’t get a free pass for saying ridiculous things just because free speech | difficulties communicating | you’ve done great things or whatever.
I don’t want a world where everything is filtered but I do want people to think about the impact of what they say before they say it.
I prefer applying compassion to people who say stupid shit.
I also prefer weirdos to Pearl Clutchers. A segment of the world may want homogeneity, but I don’t. I don’t particularly like Stallman, but I also appreciate his weirdness.
In the present day and age you can only evaluate it with reason as long as you are anonymous. If you use your real name and give any comment that can be remotely construed as supporting sex offenders or racists, your political enemies will send the angry mob your way. Your counter-arguments won't be heard, you won't be given a chance to explain or defend yourself in a mutually respectful discussion, instead you political weight will be voided overnight and someone much more flexible in their beliefs will take your place.
No... he needed a PR manager desperately and I'm very surprised that the FSF or MIT never even considered nor assigned one to him. I know he's a grown man and is responsible for what he says, but he is, was, whatever, a figure to the CS community and as such should have had his public comments vetted more.
> I'm very surprised that the FSF or MIT never even considered nor assigned one to him
You think he would have cooperated? I can't imagine Stallman being happy with having a filter for the things he wants to say or being told to not say something.
"I can't imagine Stallman being happy with having a filter"
Yeah... How happy do you think he is now??? I can guarantee he is sitting at home right now replaying the last week over in his head wishing he would have kept his mouth shut. What is next for this dude? He will NEVER be able to get a job ANYWHERE cause no one will want to be associated with him. I HIGHLY doubt he made enough money to just retire... So really... What's next for him?
Everyone thinks filters are control and evil, however, sometimes they are there for your protection.
You underestimate the level RMS operates at. Somebody who dedicates his life to an ideal is not going to cry about the occasional setback.
> He will NEVER be able to get a job ANYWHERE
You really underestimate RMS. There is a world beyond the US, that doesn't really care that much about PC culture. Roman Polanski never stopped working, and he actually did have sex with a minor.
Nor would that be of interest for the people he inspired. The assertion is basically that PR is needed to tranquilize or distract people now out for his head. A sad state of affairs really.
I wonder if the terminus "public relations" should be renamed to "press relations", since I doubt milking the click money is representing public opinion anymore, just the most judgmental individuals instead.
PR messages by definition are as always devoid of significant meaning. I cannot really relate to people that crave more of this.
I totally agree, this could have all been avoided if someone pulled him aside and told him to sit on his hands. RMS is brilliant, but he does seem to be tone deaf. Now is not the time for old white men of privilege to be commenting on the sexuality of young women. (not that it ever was appropriate)
Funny that you evoke misogyny at this point, given how RMS is primarily a godawful human being to women, the vast majority of which your comment is ignorant of, willfully or otherwise.
This has been his godawful personality and behaviour at MIT for decades. It hasn't gone unreported. It hasn't gone unnoticed. But few appear to have ever acted on it appropriately, and the appropriate action here is removing him from any and all communities where he can do damage. It's occurring years too late, but at least it's occurring. It's sad that it took his association with a worldwide pedophilia/human trafficking ring to accomplish this, given his decades of ghastly abuse of peers/colleagues/students.
Even more sad that after this association has been revealed, communities like this one are significantly in self-defense mode.
If your response to this story is to get defensive, or to use keywords like "free speech," you have questions you need to ask yourself. Very serious questions. Questions that I guarantee your various communities want answers to before you engage with them further.
Anyone have a link to the actual text of chain letter? I don't want others' interpretation, that link is to an incomplete summary with links to other incomplete summaries. Cursory search leads to pages of other "summaries", and yet searching 'site:motherboard.com stallman chain letter' nets ZERO results? WTF?
Thank you much, Sacho. I would never have clicked on the Vice article link. For those who may be confused, &/or on mobile, the PDF is in order from last post to first.
Very unfortunate RS decided to be pedantic here. While he never excused the behavior(AFAIR), it is a poor & insensitive time to argue legal minutiae, IMO. I am disappointed by his callousness. However, I am not ready to join the partially informed lynch mob.
I hope those who make policies in media & enforce the laws do not let side-shows & obfuscations get in the way of bringing every last monster who visited Epstein's island to justice.
PS: Google captcha to post on HN now?
No thanks, henceforth.
> Do you really need a PR person to know that suggesting underage sex is OK is a risky topic of conversation?
This comment is infuriatingly wrong.
Stallman did nothing of the sort. Stallman's "crime" was having the audacity of pointing out that the technical definition of the crime matching the accusations was statutory rape. That's it.
The problem is that RMS didn't state it like you did. He's a victim of his own pedantry. A victim of his own indiscretions. He didn't need to opine about such hateful acts. No job and no reputation.
Well he didn't _need_ to voice his opinion on copyright and proprietary software either.
But I am glad he did.
Look I agree what he did was dumb, but he is free to voice an opinion on anything he likes. We don't have to agree with it but we don't have to turn it into a witch hunt either..
cut the crap dude. this guy has been either defending or trivializing young girls having sex with older men, or whatever you want to call 12, 14 year old girls having sex with 50, 60 year old men, for 20 years now. he is specifically saying on record that he isn’t convinced it’s a big deal, among numerous other comments. 20 years.
this guy isn’t being hounded out of his job over one slip of the tongue, one mistake. he has been making these comments for a long time, and it finally caught up to him.
> cut the crap dude. this guy has been either defending or trivializing young girls having sex with older men
Stop with the bullshit already. Stallman himself stated that the accusations (being offered sex by a 17yo girl) amount to statutory rape. In what twisted mind does this come even close to match your entirely made up story?
Stick to the facts instead of resorting to use your imagination to fabricate any support for your self-righteous witch-hunt.
Selling sex is o.k., so what if Minsky didn't realize that she wasn't willing, how was he supposed to know. She was 17, and surrounded by money, not exactly what you consider a child sex slave chained to a bed in a developing country. Sex for money is o.k.
splitting hairs on what is and what is not pedophilia, and suggesting that girls who were likely trafficked or groomed by older men for sex, yet might have been entirely willing participants, is exactly what he said, and it’s just as bad and boneheaded of a statement as about any others you can make on this subjects.
and he SHOULD lose his job. he isn’t some grunt programmer, he is the senior representative of the FSF and the FSF deserves to have people on its board that aren’t going to embroil them in such boneheaded and unnecessary distractions, and they deserve someone on their board who shows better judgement than this.
and unlike some people here I am not about to split hairs about whether a 14 year old girl that is being groomed for prostitution is or is not capable of giving consent, and i’m not about to engage in semantic quibbles about what the right _word_ is to describe someone who engages in these things.
some you are completely missing the forest for the trees here.
Sticking to the facts is exactly the problem here, everyone gets so wrapped up in their moral outrage and presumed superiority that they aren’t looking at what this guy actually said.
I think a lot of people are forgetting that the guy has 20 years of public comments like this. You can pedantically pick apart this single statement as much as you want, defend him because this statement has been twisted, and argue that it’s therefore a witch hunt, but... this didn’t exactly come out of left field here.
This is a problem entirely of his own making, stretching out over decades.
> I think a lot of people are forgetting that the guy has 20 years of public comments like this.
The honest reaction to being forced to recognize that the absurd accusations being thrown at Stallman are absurd, entirely made up, and without any link to what he actually said is not to try desperately to move the goal post.
> He never suggested though that an old man having sex with a 14 years old girl was an ok thing.
> People who wanted to read it, read it from his words, but he never said it.
Sure he did. His words were not written in vacuum, he wrote them in a discussion thread about Epstein.
It's not like someone took his words from a scholarly discussion of sexual development and put them misleadingly in the sex trafficking context.
RMS proudly(!) did that. As he likes to raise trouble. Remember when he told a new parent not to mention his newborn, and everybody else on the list told him he's an asshole?
> He never suggested though that an old man having sex with a 14 years old girl was an ok thing.
Yes he did: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children." *
Stallman has a history of abusive behavior and opinions going back decades. This most recent email thread was just the final culminating incident. You can't argue in good faith while ignoring everything that he previously did and said.
His crime was being pedantic about the definition of rape around people who can't even differentiate rape from underage sex, which are probably the same people that are interpreting it as Him defending underage sex.
Yes he did:
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children." *
Stallman was driven out because of decades of abusive behavior and opinions. The most recent incident was just the final straw. Ignoring that historical context is rather disingenuous.
Anyway, he subsquently said that he changed his mind on that point, after discussions with other people about it. You ought to include that if you're going to try to represent the man's history.
We're discussing his resignation and the pressure that was surely brought to bear on him to do so. Which almost certainly is related to his history of pro-pedophilia comments, not just the most recent ones.
But at the same time the other side is arguing that the tactics used to this end involve misquoting and lying about what he said.
In the end it is two groups of people having two correlated (but different) conversations.
Many (not all, but many) of RMS "defenders" here would completely agree if not for this backhanded tactics, as some are only asking for proper representation of facts.
The fact that a lot of "takedown" pieces continue to lie means that they force together two groups of people that do not necessarily agree.
If sex without consent is rape, and minors can't meaningfully consent to having sex with an adult, then having sex with a minor is kinda rape.
His comment about 17 vs. 18 years old shows that he's detached from reality. The law has to draw the line somewhere, it's necessarily arbitrary to some extent. It's still okay to discuss such nuances, but then don't be snarky. Context matters too. What point was he trying to make here and why?
"Context: In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
> 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.
Some SJW responded by writing a Medium post called "Remove Richard Stallman". Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was likely "entirely willing" and as "defending Epstein". He has now been pressured to resign from MIT
Furthermore the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so, and according to physicist Greg Benford she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:
> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me.
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down?
Edit: He has also resigned from the Free Software Foundation, which he founded. Grim news for free software, since I think true-believing purists like Stallman are vital to prevent various kinds of co-option."
> Washington had slaves, that doesn't mean we should hate him.
Counterpoint: yes it does.
Judging Washington by the standards of his time and his peers, slavery was abhorrent. Take the case of Quock Walker, who sued for his freedom in 1781, for instance. The chief justice of Massachusetts (and later Washington's own nominee for chief justice of the US) wrote:
> As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle [...] nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage -- a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government [...] sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal [...] and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature [...]
As recorded by Washington's contemporary James Madison, Washington's contemporary Gouverneur Morris denounced the three-fifths compromise during the 1787 constitutional convention:
> He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. [...] Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. [...] The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.
We should not so facilely dismiss the difficult challenge that Washington is seen as the father of this nation and yet owned slaves. Other founding fathers understood that the American norm of liberty was clearly incompatible with holding slavery in anything other than contempt. Other founding fathers called his behavior "repugnant" and "nefarious" - why should we shy away from criticizing him? It seems far more sensible to me to worry that Washington (along with many others) led our nation into believing a compromised, twisted view of liberty and the natural rights of man, with lasting consequences for the country which hardly ended in the Civil War.
I'm not saying that Washington thought he was right to have slaves. He was wrong to have slaves and it reflects poorly on him that he did. Rather, I'm saying the amount of good he did for this country far outweighs his wrongs.
I'm making a subtler point: the good he did for this country was inescapably intertwined with his ownership of slaves.
One view you can take, which seems defensible, is that he grew to agree with the anti-slavery view late in life, yet as a calculated measure to hold the country together when half the economy was dependent on slavery, did nothing about it, and also was too weak to give up his own station in life which was similarly dependent on slavery. Yet he freed his slaves in his will, both for their own sake and in the (ultimately vain) hope that he would inspire others to do the same.
The other view is that he never actually believed it, or he would have made freeing human beings a political priority. He was embarrassed into freeing his slaves after Martha's death, but he fundamentally thought that it was more important for himself and Martha to live their last years in comfort than for his slaves to live in freedom, and that the negative peace of the new country holding together was preferable to the positive peace of meaningful liberty. And that therefore the "good" he did for this country was to set us up for the Civil War and for many more decades of viewing certain people as not fully deserving of human rights.
And relevantly to RMS and the free software movement - if Washington hadn't been there, if instead William Cushing or Gouverneur Morris had been in a similar role, what would they have done? Or even if Washington were still there but he did not use his leadership position to say, "I don't like slavery, but we have to keep it for now," what could Cushing or Morris have accomplished? Washington presided over the convention where Morris made his ultimately ineffective argument.
Washington wasn't the only founding father, nor the only skilled military leader among the revolutionary forces. In a world without him, would the US still have won and would it have been better set up to fight slavery? (Would the revolutionary forces have allowed black soldiers in earlier, and moreover had more morale among the black soldiers, thereby leading to an earlier victory?) If such a scenario is plausible, then the good he did didn't outweigh his wrongs.
You're speaking as if love and hate should cancel out, like weights balancing. But having a love/hate understanding of a person is extremely common. If I were teaching a person who could not understand both (such as a young child) I would start with only the good things about Washington, because that's more accurate if you absolutely had to choose. But, we're all adults here.
My goodness, Stallman just got cancelled. I think it's absolutely fair to criticize statements he's made (I absolutely disagree with his statements on pedophilia), but not to pressure him out of the work to which he's devoted his life. Kicked out of MIT and the FSF? That's gotta be rough for the guy.
Always nice to see a few angry people on the 'net with out-sized voices manage to bring down an icon of computer science. No one should have his life ruined by a kangaroo trial in the court of public opinion. People don't make good decisions when they try to react and "do something"; it would make more sense to let things die down a little and get the facts on what actually happened. Then make a decision on how best to go forward.
For those, like me, who missed the story behind this story... TL;DR: Richard Stallman has resigned from MIT and the FSF over comments he made defending Marvin Minsky "partying" with Epstein, and donations made to MIT. Joi Ito, the Media Lab director resigned over covering up the donations. Nicholas Negroponte "shocked" with his defense of these donations. Lawrence Lessig wrote about trying to rationalize the donations.
This is very sad that the leader of the FSF took such actions. We benefited from his insights and advocacy on software, but the defense of Epstein, who essentially had a child abuse production line and defense of pedophilia is not something I can support and it is proper that someone new takes over.
Stallman's views were a variety of American libertarianism. While there are a few good points within that tradition regarding personal freedom, it's kind of sad that he carried some of the other baggage with his obsession with age of consent laws.
From reading his comments isn’t he defending someone named Minsk who had sex with a 17 year old and didn’t know she was being coerced into it by Epstein?
It seems to be a bit of a far fetched theory to me that this guy would meet a 17 year old through Epstein and not really be aware of what Epstein was doing, but it doesn’t really seem to be a defense of sexual trafficking, pedophilia or rape.
That being said this is from my reading of the above thread so maybe I’m not getting the full picture here.
In they were in Massachusetts, Minsky might have asked, "Are you here willingly, and how old are you?" And he could have received the reply, "Absolutely, I'm having the time of my life with Jeffrey and all the famous people he introduces me to, and I'm 16."
And the sex might then have seemed consensual and legal to Minsky, because even now in 2019, the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16.
That's not what I see when I click on that link! Just in case we're seeing different page-versions, what does a frozen copy of the Wikipedia page from a third site show? Also "16":
It's worth mentioning that Stallman was appearing on Russia Today on a regular basis, usually to support the Russian narrative rather than to advocate the Free Software. If you are shilling for foreign oligarchs, expect the US disinformation machine to be used against you.
Unfortunate witch hunt against an innocent, if strange, man. I could go on but people don't want to hear anything other than the hateful things that they believe.
Nobody’s burning him at the stake or putting him in jail. He can go on living a perfectly good life. What he can no longer do is act in a leadership role in the community and corrupt that community with his crap.
I'm obviously late to the party and I have no idea what happened there and what are you talking about, so let me express my sincere condolences in case if this is another SJW victory or something, but more importantly: what did he do as a president and a member of board of directors of FSF anyways? I never quite understood what is it's actual real-world function for the last like 20 years.
Eh, stallman's career was basically always about pontificating from his moral high ground. Makes a lot of sense to me for him to step off the pulpit when he expresses himself so poorly, has so many people complaining about his super-cringe behavior towards women for the last 3 decades, and becomes infamous as the "is it really ok to refer to statutory rape as 'assault', or does that give people the wrong idea" guy.
Stallman has been a liability as a figurehead for a long time, and software freedom deserves better standard-bearers.
I saw Stallman once at a public lecture. He was incredibly rude, but is seemingly oblivious to how obnoxious he is being (he struck me as somebody heavily on the spectrum).
I hate to think how many people have written off the cause of software freedom as a joke because of his conduct.
People around him ought to be telling him in stronger terms that his views and general manner are unacceptable.
you know, i saw Stallman at a conference once and the nice people at FSF were also there. FSF as a whole is doing important work and liked the talks they gave and how they were talking about some of the issues ivolved.
Stallman on the other side came across as a nutjob. And it wasn’t because of his principles (which if you think about it are great and something to actually aspire to - at least in connection to software) but because of his behavior. Being antisocial or making a claim without paying attention to the social context or the setting the way he managed to do leads me to believe that he may have some sort of mental health issues. again: all respect for his work and principles when it comes to software dissolved by anti-social behavior.
I believe it. I mean, he's the same guy who picked something off his foot and ate it[0]. He clearly doesn't understand or care about behaving in a socially acceptable way.
I'm pretty damn disappointed with the discourse here. What RMS wrote in the MIT mailing list was so reprehensible, that I'm pretty sure the people here defending him must have not read it. So here is the comments he wrote to a major MIT mailing list where he victim-blames child sex trafficking victims in the wake of MIT media lab accepting money from credibly accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein:
> 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 accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
> 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.
> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
> Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
You can (and we must) acknowledge Stallman's contributions to the field while not condoning his pattern of bad behavior. because if we let a leading figure in the industry act this way publicly, it reflects bad on all of us. We cannot claim to be an industry that accepts and welcomes diverse viewpoints and experiences while still holding up a man who has such a long laundry list of reprehensible behavior as a leader and respected figure in the industry.
No, you just have a wildly differing opinion from the people you speak of (well, most of them, anyway... there does seem to be more than one crowd of defenders).
It goes both ways - Stallman's words seem pretty accurate to me, and it's totally alien to me that you would find them reprehensible. In particular, I cannot understand how you came to the conclusion that he "victim-blames" Giuffre - even though he writes that she "was being coerced into sex" and "She was harmed".
It is interesting that Stallman has been expressing very harsh opinions, unpopular among many people, for decades. Nothing happened to him, on the contrary, he was well respected even among people who did not share his political views and who were frequently on the receiving end of his criticism.
But as soon as he dared to veer a little from the party line in one particular question, he has been unpersoned in literally couple of days, despite all apologies and attempts to explain he didn't really mean any heresy. I guess that shows who you can disagree with and who would really hurt you if they even suspect you might disagree (even though you don't).
People have to have a path to redemption. Stallman apologized and admitted he was wrong. Why is it not acceptable to make a mistake with words? Isn't it impractical to expect everyone to never say something they regret? These are words we're talking about. It's not like Stallman raped a child.
Kicking him out of FSF and MIT seems quite excessive for somebody saying something and then apologizing for it. Whether they are Stallman, a student, or anyone really.
Do the people involved at FSF and MIT hold themselves to the same standard they're holding Stallman to? We'll surely find out because humans tend to say a lot of stupid shit over the course of their lifetime.
Constructing a situation in which Marvin Minsky somehow was blameless for his relationship with a known pedophile and child sex trafficker and situations directly resulting from that relationship, then projecting the reactions of other people through that situation, is not merely a mistake with words. Coupled with his at-best-real-gross chinstroking about minors, consent, and statutory rape in the past, it demonstrates a pattern. And it's a pattern that, obviously, made enough people uncomfortable as to want to not associate with him--as is their right.
MIT doesn't have to give Richard Stallman a do-nothing job. The FSF doesn't have to give Richard Stallman a (nearly) do-nothing job. Everybody makes mistakes, sure. You make up for those mistakes by doing good and doing right and if Stallman wants redemption, literally nobody is stopping him from going after it. They're just not bankrolling it. There's a difference here.
Yes. Yes, it is. Are we talking about the same story? We’re talking about something Richard Stallman said. That is his offense and the reason for him being kicked out of FSF and MIT.
Since you dodged the whole point of my comment by reiterating that Stallman said something offensive, I’ll restate my point clearly as a question: In your opinion, can someone be forgiven for saying something wrong? and how do they seek that forgiveness other than apologizing and admitting they were wrong?
I’m sure like everyone you’ve said horrible shit over your lifetime, whether in public or private, whether strangers or family. If we brought out those people hurt by your words over your lifetime, wouldn’t you want to be forgiven? Don’t hold other people to a different standard than you hold yourself.
Being the kind of person who would do what he did, having a history of being That Guy in shitty and gross ways ("tender embraces" cards, opining about "natalism" on emacs-devel, pedophile apologia over a couple decades) is why this became the straw that broke the camel's back. Saying is a reflection of being, and that is what is so often elided by a certain crowd getting all hot under the T-shirt right now.
Particularly for figures with significant platforms, the way to redemption is through demonstrating that one has learned and improved, not merely quickly saying "I'm sorry!" and moving on. Perhaps a good way to start would be for RMS to spend time working with an organization dedicated to helping survivors of sexual assault, learning from that experience, and using his broad platform to discuss what he learns with people who, as this thread amply demonstrates, could sorely use the perspective.
My shit does stink, yes. Never felt a need to cape up for pedophiles, but I've certainly said and believed some real unfortunate shit. I used to be a shitty little "libertarian" when I was younger who, through saying things, did hurt people. Had the modern MRA/GamerGate funnel existed when I was young I'd probably have fallen into it. As it is, I've spent most of my adult life being coached out of and in many ways deprogramming myself out of being a selfish reactionary, and working (deeds, not words) to make up for being shitty.
I'm not a particularly good person--but I'm working on it in a conscious way. He can, too.
I will admit I am not involved in FSF and am realizing I am missing a lot of context here regarding Stallmans apparent history of these types of comments.
It is very clear that many people are here to defend statutory rape or recite talking points from Reddit. The thing is, you couldn’t be around OSS for more than a month without tripping over Stallman harassing women or producing a six-page rider or yelling at parents on mailing lists for having children. This wasn’t a sudden or unexpected event: this is a troll finally discovering the boundaries of what the community would tolerate.
RMS is a fool. He should have kept his mouth shut because he is one of the least qualified people to speak on this subject, given his own admission of having problems relating to others in an empathic way and his previous very insensitive comments on adults having sex with minors.
On top of that he does Minsky a huge disservice:
Minsky can't defend himself anymore and RMS has now made a direct connection between Minsky and having sex with underage girls when in fact this may never have happened at all.
The deposition is unfortunately ambiguous about this fact:
Page 204, the question is 'Where did you go to have sex with Marvin Minsky?'; then further down that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have sex with him but crucially never asks her whether or not it actually happened, and at least one person is on record that Minsky turned her down:
So the next time someone does something bad, and a group of people rally to support them despite it being obviously bad, we should all look back to this thread.
RMS is a figure in the hacker/tech community so the hacker/tech community has done most of the excusing for his behavior.
It's sad. There's room for argument in how much backlash he should receive, but if you're arguing that what said is fine, I would argue that you may be fooling yourself.
Consider some public figure you dislike (politician, celebrity, etc). Now pretend that person said these things. Would you be so forgiving? Maybe you would. But if you find the answer to be no, then you're just protecting your own. Quit that.
I've always heard the person who brings a company to a turning point might not be the one to make the turn. Maybe it's the same for movements. Open source went a long way with his poor behavior, but now it's likely to become a liability as open source spreads further into a world of collapsed context and diverse experiences.
I have worked in jobs where there have been very strange creepy people, both women and men. Some are angry and tense. Some are odd and talk restless or slightly disturbing stuff that make everyone uncomfortable. But if they do their work well they can stay. Others give them some room. It's called tolerance.
If RMS was just random superhacker doing his thing. I would defend him. His boss should find a position for him where he can contribute and other people should feel free to feel uncomfortable and avoid him.
But RMS is de facto leader and public figure in movement that is also political. He does not deserve the same level of consideration as normal HR headache would. Even if everything against him would be completely unjust, there is no requirement for just treatment for top leaders. They can be sacked for any reason whatsoever.