I fully support RMS being on the FSF board for life.
(I also think he would be fantastic making a cameo in a bit part in Disney's Mandalorian series, bitching about "damned proprietary code" used in imperial droids that makes them hard to reprogram but that's another topic for another message board...)
I find it hard to support a guy that says stuff like this:
"There is a perverse movement among women to think that they should carry fetuses with Downs' syndrome to term, rather than abort them and try again.
...
Next, people will take thalidomide to demonstrate how they can love babies born without limbs." - RMS
Libre software, if it ever becomes the societal norm, is revolutionary in the traditional meaning of that word - turning over the societal order (vs. smartphones which haven't changed the existing societal order much at all), and if you are seeking to create a societal revolution, the words and actions of your leadership matter beyond the immediate domain of your movement.
RMS may not have much in terms of money, but he has a lot of influence due to his stature in the libre software movement, and with influence comes responsibility and accountability to those in the movement he started.
Not really. It's the Free Software Foundation, not the Free People Foundation. Stallman's only goal has been to develop an ecosystem of free and open software, and his political and personal opinions have never stood in the way of that. His belief that everyone should have access to quality, open software supersedes whatever personal agenda people perceive to be true.
> Stallman's only goal has been to develop an ecosystem of free and open software
Why is his goal the only one that matters? Is he a prophet, or is he just a guy who created a compelling idea? Should the movement continue to be centered on him as a personality? The FSF movement is by definition far bigger than him, and it can reasonably contain other related goals. Perhaps those with other goals can make peace with keeping him around, perhaps they can't.
Well, it means supporting the exclusion of every person that feels alienated by Stallman's behavior and publicly stated views. For as long as Stallman's alive.
Irrespective of any moral or ethical concerns, keeping Stallman doesn't seem very pragmatic and forward-looking for an organization that is hurting for young blood anyway.
A leader should be able to recognize when he's driving people away, and act accordingly.
This might be an unpopular opionion, but anyone who feels that Stallmans antics make him unfit for leading the FSF is also not someone I want have any say in that organizsation.
It shows a lack of ability to discern between message and messanger, as well as private and professional opinion.
He is the single most consistent arbiter of open source, clinging to views we all here admire; With such a dedication that it is hard to imagine ANYONE, even fictional, who would be better suited for that particular position (head of FSF).
Aleniating people is in and of itself not a problem for a leader, it works the same way in any other area:
Would you want to attract people to Black Lives Matter who would be alienated by Martin Luther King?
Do you really find it problematic that the buddhists don't try to attract people who can't stand the Dalai Lama?
Is it really a Problem that the FSF didn't attract people who would critizise Stallman ONLY on points which have no bearing on the mission of the FSF?
And the article really makes a great point about how most of that criticism consists of misrepresentation, faulty analysis and double standards.
Keeping people like that out of the FSF is not only fine by me, it is absolute paramount to keep it working.
FSF is a _fenomenally_ successful organisation in achieving their mission. Free Software is everywhere, it has spawned endless businessess and has completely changed the way people create software.
Absolutely thanks to FSF and GNU, who started this all. And their pedantry is the gold standard people should strive for. Not everyone can achieve such software purity, but everyone should know that it is the right thing.
My opinion is that such people are stupid. I can understand people that disagree with RMS on his free-software philosophy, or views on software development, or management style, or his personal quirks or whatever and not wanting to work with him - fine, freedom of association, it's yours to choose. That's valid and understandable.
Making a choice because of a random opinion voiced once - which is completely immaterial as RMS himself is not a woman and his opinions about personal decisions of women have absolutely zero importance (which does not preclude him from voicing them, everybody can have an opinion, just some of them are pretty worthless and useless) - is just stupid. It's manually disabling your own intellect, removing all the huge body of useful information you could base your decisions on and concentrate your attention on one immaterial detail. It's like you being offered an awesome job in a great company with huge salary and you quitting on the first day because one person in your office has a pen of a wrong shade on his desk. I can only attribute such decisions to performative virtue signalling, because the alternative would be insanity.
Well, you told who you are, then. Virtue signalling is more important to you than the work done by the open source community and the FSF, and you'd gladly destroy the latter for a chance of the former. OK, listened.
No, I do not realize that because it is not true. I am expressing my opinion, not trying to fit within some cultural mold that requires of me performative actions where the only purpose is to demonstrate my allegiance to "right" people and my non-association with "this kind of people". When I use the term "woke", I mean people who call themselves this term, or are functionally and ideologically equivalent to those people. I didn't invent this term, I don't like it particularly, but it came to identify a specific group of people with specific views and action patterns, so I use it. And I am completely sure when I use it, you know who and what I mean. So using it is an efficient communication practice.
> If open source could only be done by sexual abusers
This is an extremely wrong "if" which nobody actually claimed before you. By implying that your opponents said something like that, you are lying. Do not do that.
> it would indeed be sad.
It would be, but it's not because your initial assumption is false. What is currently sad instead is that you have to resort to falsities to advance your point. Or maybe not - maybe it's just a sign you have nothing better in your quiver.
It's an intensely person decision, and no one needs someone like RMS spouting on about what they should do. Once he's no longer involved with leading FSF/GNU he can blather along as much as he likes.
This is the cherry on the top: "Next, people will take thalidomide to demonstrate how they can love babies born without limbs."
I'm sure all the victims of thalidomide with be pleased at this mockery.
Yes, and him being in Disney movie earning money for Disney would only tarnish his image. But one can dream, that in an alternate universe, where pop culture is not wholly owned by reptiloid corporations, there could be the Mandalorian where RMS could play a droid technician muttering about damn proprietary code... and that'd be awesome.
Does anybody else find it a little scary to comment on this topic in case they get called out and targeted as well? The well written link posted to “wetheweb” discusses this a bit. Some quotes:
> According to the Atlantic, a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking point,” it turns out the numbers don’t fit that narrative. Turns out just about everyone thinks we need more free speech. This includes large pluralities of all races (e.g. 75% of African Americans, 87% of Hispanics) and all ages (e.g. 79% of Americans under age 24).
> A 2017 poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, found that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have and 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.
Edit: Speaking of, somebody is flagging this story (to be clear, not this comment) to keep people from even discussing the topic. As of writing, they succeeded. We need a “this shouldn’t be flagged” button
> political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have
It would be interesting to know what are these "important discussions".
> 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs
I don't think it literally prevents them, more like it makes them scared to share their political beliefs for fear of being called out when those are not "acceptable" beliefs. If anyone can give me an example of some political belief that is not justified in being "unacceptable", I'd be happy to re-evaluate this situation as being bad.
This is something I hadn't considered at all. As a non-US citizen the idea that all guns should be banned isn't that unacceptable to me in the slightest.
Sure.
During dinner with my in-laws (siblings and parents), my MIL brought up the now-removed phrase from the manifesto on BlackLivesMatter.com that says "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another...".
She and the rest of the table interpreted it as "BLM wants to abolish the family as a societal unit." I suggested the alternate, "unacceptable" interpretation that they are expanding the definition of family to include non-blood relatives and encourage caring communities. This was not received well, and I ended up getting texts about the incorrectness of my belief even after we had left that day.
So now I am scared to share my political beliefs for fear of being called out, even when I share something that I view as reasonable and "possibly acceptable".
But maybe you're looking for a bigger example.
Is this an example of political correctness silencing you? I'm honestly asking, because it's interesting. Traditionally, the phrase refers to being "sensitive", so e.g. your opinion would be the politically correct opinion, and theirs would be the "not afraid to hurt feelings" opinion. But if you take the phrase more literally, it would refer to the fallacy of judging what is "correct" according solely to the politics of the observer - regardless of what those politics are. In which case, yes, their political correctness is suppressing you (and if you had treated them the same way, your political correctness would have been suppressing them at the same time).
My comment was more a direct response to the parent comment's question 'If anyone can give me an example of some political belief that is not justified in being "unacceptable"…', but my scenario only fits a wider definition "being silenced by political correctness". Every American probably has a different definition of what "political correctness is a problem in our country" means. The classic definition from right-leaning Americans is "the fight on how to say and do things in the most inclusive way possible is getting in the way of actually doing the things." But me being silenced by my in-laws fits under the umbrella of political correctness if you define it as "the ardor of your support for the 'correct' political thinking burns others". That concept currently goes by other names currently. I call it culture wars and general tribalism. I think the political correctness fight of a decade ago has shifted and evolved into the broader tribalism of today. So "political correctness" as you described it doesn't fit, but I think it fits with how I think the survey respondents interpreted it.
> Does anybody else find it a little scary to comment on this topic in case they get called out and targeted as well?
Honestly? No.
And the problem with the numbers in that poll is that there is no reason to think that all those people assign the same meaning to the words. Everyone's in favor of "free speech," but can they articulate a nuanced definition of it and the effects on society of that definition?
This will not last! The day of the judgement, those of us who voted for your comment will be disclosed, and we will be duly punished for our wrongthink.
It's rare that a comment floats on the line so perfectly - I don't even have a suspicion about whether you are mocking the parent for being dramatic/self-pitying, or if you are being sarcastic in a critique of those who are being accused of censorship.
So I succeeded in my purpose to mock everybody? But really, I think that we are not far from the "grand upvote disclosure" day where by some strange leak all upvotes in the internet will become public. Then people will start to be fired for having upvoted the wrong comment 20 years ago. This will be recursive, of course: if you ever upvoted a comment written by a wrong person, you become a wrong person as well. And so on. So, please be careful with the upvotes to controversial comments here.
That's already the case on reddit to some extent, you can be banned for upvoting content.
From their announcement on the subject:
"""
Today, we’re making an update to address this gap: Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities.
>somebody is flagging this story to keep people from even discussing the topic.
This applies to your entire comment, but the quoted line is most salient: Be careful not to fall into the victimized underdog mentality. There are legitimate concerns on both sides here, but there is a ton of noise in the form of pointing to imagined persons/crowds and accusing them of persecution. For example, submissions are frequently flagged for the poor quality of discussion they trigger - not simply because "somebody" is "trying to keep people from even discussing it", which is an easy sentiment to reach for, and falls under the category of fallacy that boils down to "our sociopolitical enemies are simply evil - don't you agree, fellow people on my side?".
I reread your comment and I think you are at least partially correct about how I framed things. If you read this, is there a more constructive way I could have raised this concern?
I do not believe the comments in this thread constitute a low quality discussion. The story should not have been flagged, in my opinion at least, and this action has stopped some of the only balanced discussion of the topic I’ve seen online since the story first broke. It has people from both sides being mostly polite and has links to some high quality material. It’s just a topic that many people are upset by. Also, after getting flagged, they git repo saw the rate of new PR signings almost flatline
This entire approach of calling for resignations/firings (no matter the person) rejects careful, balanced thinking about the best way to proceed. Instead, it seems to feed on knee-jerk reactions to isolated statements and actions, often only heard second- or third-hand, that remind me more of a witch hunt than a thoughtful plan. I rarely see constructive discussion stemming from this approach. I'm curious about what characteristics the community really values in a leader of the FSF, but the discussion instead seems to overwhelmingly revolve around who can be forced to resign in disgrace, which leaves someone else to figure out how to actually improve the situation.
I think this can be appropriate when the situation is dire and all other courses of action have been exhausted. I'm just not sure this is such a situation.
In addition to not being particularly constructive, I agree with your point: the mob mentality means if I'm interested in discussing how to proceed _before_ everyone on the board of the FSF is fired, I open myself to the same mob that wants it done _now_. This makes discussing an already difficult problem significantly harder and more risky. Even if I bring myself to engage in conversation, many of the more deliberative folks I would like to hear from won't engage, likely for the same reasons that gave me pause. I encountered this to a surprising degree reading through comments on Ars Technica's coverage of this[0].
On the topic of the FSF, I really value that RMS has a very mature and well-considered understanding of the dynamics of computers and their software, and how those can shape society. But the points about him making others uncomfortable on a routine basis are concerning, and I think a more charismatic leader would certainly be an improvement. I would want that leader to have a similarly strong understanding of the core issues, though. I wonder if someone like Eben Moglen could perform in such a role. Come to think of it, it might be cool if Cory Doctorow could play a public-facing role for the FSF.
>a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking point,” it turns out the numbers don’t fit that narrative.
This seems irrational. For example, I both "believe that political correctness is a problem in our country" and believe that "the free speech movement", in the modern context, is composed largely of "racist dog-whistles" and "far-right talking points". They aren't mutually exclusive opinions, yet the author writes as though they obviously are. Besides believing that "political correctness" has silenced important discussions, I also believe it's only one example of many forms of irrational side-taking and hatred that have silenced important discussions, committed across the political spectrum. It seems like the author is taking advantage of the instantly recognizable noun "political correctness" as a way to package a biased opinion that purposefully ignores closely related things that are damaging discussion and civility just as dramatically.
It would only be double standards if the same people who didn't flag one, did flag the other. It's entirely possible that it's entirely different people. Besides which, yesterday's _was_ flagged.
So we should be shameful for basing conclusions on what non-anecdotal information we've been exposed to?
I've had such encounters with someone many on HN would know. I don't hold anyone accountable for mentioning their name or talking nicely about them because how could they possibly know what happened behind closed doors?
When a person has a critical mass of accusations of sexual assaults, AND they are open about their support (or at least sympathy) for a well-known rapist and pedophile, the accusations start to become more and more plausible.
You can certainly make an argument that there is not enough information and/or it is not of reliable enough provenance to accept the consequences X of action over the consequences Y of inaction. But you've simply stated that it is so by inhospitably rewording the parent post.
I personally know fifteen women who've been sexually harassed by you. Shame on hackernews dot com for giving you a platform, shame on your employer, shame on everyone around you.
I support RMS but also believe he should be removed from the board of the FSF a second time.
Let's let him continue to advocate for free software and ensure he is able to support himself, but let's also try not to discourage people from participating because they're in fear of being harrassed or excluded.
I won't sign either letter, but of the two, I think this one is better. Neither has the right conclusion. The other suggests he be banned from the community entirely.
Edit: the other letter has a lot higher caliber of signers. I think there are a lot of influential people in the FLOSS community who haven't signed either though. Perhaps a new letter should be made that is just about removing him from the board of the FSF and from other leadership positions (including the GNU Project).
As little as I like to do this, I think it's important to bring up the "autism" topic, because I see way too many autistic programmers being thrown under the bus for stuff like this. To start, the three smartest programmers I personally know are autistic, and all of them struggle to make sound judgement calls at the drop of a hat. I've seen them lambasted in IRC channels for saying stupid things or slipping up a function name when writing documentation, but every one of them could out-code their harasser at a moments notice. I get the feeling we're in the same boat with RMS, since I've seen his behavior before in neurodivergent programmers: hard-headedness, dedication to a fault, and speaking his mind even when the social repercussions could blow up in his face. His Aspbergers is part of what makes him who he is, and I'd rather have a distastefully transparent board member than a muzzled figurehead. I value Stallman's voice, and I honestly feel bad that his slips are being sensationalized now.
I agree with a lot of the stuff being said here, but it's entirely tangential to what I talked about. Our "cancel culture" is more focused on zooming-in on the minutia than the big-picture. I love my autistic friends, and never once would I describe their behavior as mean-spirited or "jerk-like". I treat them with patient respect, and they reciprocate the sentiment. I personally know that 2 of those 3 friends love RMS (haven't asked the third :p), and I fail to see what harm he can cause by rejoining the board. Stallman envisioned a free world, where people can communicate openly and without censorship. When people try to silence him, they're only showing how little they understand his goals. You can love him, you can hate him, but you can never stop him. I personally disagree with many of his opinions, but I fully support him coming back to the FSF. Richard Stallman embodies freedom, so he belongs there, regardless of his political or personal opinions.
It's not a matter of his political or personal opinions, it's about behaviour. It's about whether the FSF wants to be welcoming to either people who behave like rms or women.
rms, if you by any chance read this: you're supposed to make the ladies laugh. If you talk to women (and talk only, leering is verboten), and make smile and laugh, sometimes a brassiere comes off and noone is unhappy afterwards.
You should read the accounts of the few people that spoke up about working for or with the FSF despite their overreaching NDA. They have nothing good to say about Stallman as a leader. His reputation alone makes him ineffective as a person to rally behind for a lot of people, despite the fact they contribute to FOSS and share more of the ideals of the free software movement than the open source movement.
You can stop Stallman, and you should, lest his ideals and the FSF drop further into irrelevance.
The article misses the point the grand parent is making:
People with autism lack (to varying degree) the ability to decode social clues and - based on that - behave in socially agreeable ways.
Since the other side (non-autists) can usually not distinguish between disregarding social norms on purpose (being a jerk) or by accident (autism), autists are often judged as jerks.
Escpecially since the high frequency of "social fuckups" rules out "normal" human mistakes.
> On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
Has he though? Has he actioned this idea, or was it just something he blogged about amongst 1000's of other thoughts that floated through his head?
One of my life lessons I think is worth pointing out, is that people's actions are far more important than what they say. And this is the problem with modern western society: someone says something stupid and everyone jumps on them as an opportunity to further their own cause.
So yes you can associate with someone like this, unless they DO something terrible.
>calls for the killing of babies if they where jewish, black etc.
How is this in any way equivalent? Being jewish or black are not disabilities. Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.
I personally think abortion is horrible, but aborting babies who are going to enter life with awful disabilities is the least objectionable form of abortion there is.
You should be outraged at the millions of perfectly healthy babies that are aborted every year just for convenience. Not this.
> Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.
People with DS frequently report greater life satisfaction that people without DS. The problem isn't DS, it's how people with DS get treated by the rest of society that's a problem.
> Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
I've been in OSS for decades. I've actually argued with RMS personally on certain subject (he called me evil, which I disagree with, but that's not the point). I've read a lot of his writings and a lot of writings about him. I never heard about this until today. I have no idea what RMS actually said on the subject (you didn't provide a quote, as it usually happens) but whatever he said, it's clearly wasn't something very important among all his body of work, if mostly nobody heard or cared about this so far.
In fact, I can't bring myself to care about RMS's views on the subject right now - even if your most uncharitable interpretation is completely correct (I am 99% sure it's not, but even in unlikely case it is) it's completely immaterial. RMS has never been and never will be in a position that such an opinion would matter for anything, he has never killed any babies and has never contributed or influenced anything that mattered in this area. He did, however, contributed a lot and mattered a lot in other areas.
One of the most idiotic and toxic features of cancel culture is reducing the immense complexity of the person's life to one - almost always distorted and misinterpreted - statement and focusing on it as if it were the only point ever. There's no "someone like that". "Someone like that" is a bullshit - no one is "like that", and "like that" is an insanely awful criteria to guide your actions. Literally everybody has done something in their life some people may not like. One can disagree with somebody on some subject and still agree with them on other subjects. That's how human society works. People can not be reduced to a single "like that", and shouldn't be. Get out of Twitter and purge it out of your system, for the benefit of yourself and humanity.
That's your response? "too long, didn't read"? Well, good job, I guess, here's your participation trophy.
> The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot.
No, it actually says nothing at all. That's the whole point, which you may have understood if you bothered to actually read. RMS's views on random subjects is just idle thoughts of a random dude, and nobody in any community owes anybody any care about what random dude once said about random subjects. If RMS were nominated for the Secretary of Health, then his views on reproductive decisions may be slightly more relevant. Call me back when that happens.
The point is that maybe you should stop doing a theoretical defense in 1000 words and head over to stallman.org and read up on the words you're defending first.
I know the words. The whole point is - for the third time - is not that those words aren't as bad as the Woko Haram on Twitter tries to present it, though this is also true. The point is even if they were what they claim, it still wouldn't be a reason for ruining somebody's life, because the whole concept of "people like that" is complete and utter bullshit. People are complex. Somehow most people people by now get that reducing somebody to their gender, or disability, or condition, or skin color, or ethnicity, or some other single trait is wrong. But it's still hard to get how reducing somebody to one single random statement - made years ago at that - is wrong. I am still not sure if it's performative obtuseness or geniune psychological blockage.
> One of the most idiotic and toxic features of cancel culture is reducing the immense complexity of the person's life to one - almost always distorted and misinterpreted - statement and focusing on it as if it were the only point ever.
I actually agree with this.
I never said "cancel him", I said it would be hard to support.
Although I strongly disagree with what he said, I can and should be able to work with people I strongly disagree with, otherwise society would collapse.
> On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
He did not say that. You make it sound like he's suggesting babies actually born should be killed. No. He's supporting the current practice of testing the fetus during pregnancy, and aborting if it has down syndrome.
Warning to others, this is what happens when you get caught up in cancel-culture wokeness, repeating allegations of others without verification. You end up repeating falsehoods as justfication, take things out of context, and confirm to onlookers you don't have the ability to form your own opinions through rational, logical thought.
> On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
Would you mind providing a citation on this? Because I have yet to really read about it anywhere else.
EDIT: Ah, so it was a rather uncharitable interpretation on his views on abortion [0]. Again, a symptom of someone with zero social awareness and I'm sure it'd be thought to be beyond the pale for some people, but far from a genocidal maniac.
I'm genuinely interested where you draw the line. Politicians (opinion: read that as mostly Republicans) have advocated for heinous things too. Your last point about feeling safe and comfortable working with such people applies especially to minorities that are severely affected by political policies. How is one "political" and the other is not?
> I hosted rms many years ago in the 90’s, what was supposed to be hosting your hero for a ~3 day thing became a ~2 month nightmare. I joined a small club “never host rms ever again”. To cope with it, I used to collect the horror stories.
> He met a woman on the first evening in town, and extended his stay. One day, I came home from work and she had moved in.
I don't personally know any autistic person, but this doesn't sound like autism. How many autistic person visits a new town, goes into a bar, and brings back a woman to your friend's bedroom, without asking the friend first? This sounds more like a run-of-the-mill asshole.
I'm sure Stallman has issues with social judgement, but that would just lead to awkward situations that resolve when the person notices they're out of line. Stallman will sit on his bad calls. I'd guess this is just what happens when your entire career is built on your stubbornness, and you get applauded for it instead of scolded.
I think getting physiology in this is just wrong. I don't know whether RMS is on the spectrum, and whether he would have been diagnosed as one if he passed some tests. I think it's beyond the point - even non-autistic people can make bad judgements, make mistakes, behave awkwardly, be stubborn and behave in socially awkward manner. Making it like "if we find a bad statement in your past, we're going to ruin your life, but if you have this magic paper then it's ok" - is not how you solve a problem or people's lives being ruined. RMS's voice is important not because he may or may not have certain condition, but because of what he's been saying and doing for years. It's not about autism, especially not about making it yet another "protected identity" checkbox.
RMS failed in his way to communicate with people, he hurt people and there are reports of scared away women. The community failed by not calling him on his mistakes, by not making these publicly clear as early as possible disregarding that he is stubborn but changes his mind when bad stances are explained clearly.
His victims should not be blamed, but people around him have to admit there are reasons he is compared to a spoiled child. This has to stop.
For his importance and the willingness to defend points of view which may be inconvenient for most people, he is needed in a movement which requires such a level of dedication and sacrifice. I don't believe there is anybody else who is capable living the way he lives just to stand on the very strict ethical side. He is very much needed.
Cancel culture should be handled carefully, for punishment should not make people give up on trying to improve. But a group should not silence when bad behavior happens.
If rms is to come back caution must be taken. He must be warned at the smallest mistakes, should not be handled as a never wrong semi-god and be encouraged to know when he hurts people and apologize for that. Otherwise the more people and the free software movement will be hurt.
What's going on with the stained glass/haloe deification of RMS in the profile photo? That alone turns me off from even reading the letter. Its visible in the HN RSS entry and on the main page: https://github.com/rms-support-letter
I appreciate you providing the context instead of just downvoting. Alot of this RMS stuff can be difficult to follow for some of us who haven't followed the guys career and are trying to fully understand this story.
I do love to see people come out with a public statement that says "We believe that a guy who, in public meetings, representing his organization, picks toe cheese from between his toes and consumes it in front of people, is absolutely the right leader for us! We believe that a guy who showers once or twice per year is the best public face for us. Out of all the billions of people on Earth, he's the one!"
Takes guts to make a statement like that. Bravo.
Here's a link about Stallman for the many HN readers who obviously don't know anything about the guy. I urge you to read it before forming your opinion about "cancel culture".
You don't need to be literally Satan to be a less than ideal for certain positions, especially when they involve represeting a movement or organisation.
I realize this is satire, but I’m concerned about the other open letter that this is referring to. How is it not supporting cancel culture? According to it, any transgression, no matter how small, that goes against identity politics is seen as an immediate and everlasting scarlet letter. For heaven sake’s, I don’t even know this guy, and I have very little knowledge of the FSF, but clearly this kind of pitch forking is very dangerous and very counterproductive.
Regardless of the minor controversial views held by RMS, this recent development is a dishonest attack on his person based on false accusations parroted by blatant liars. I don't think such precedents should be given any chance at success.
What really gets my goat about the RMS situation is that he's not neuronormative, the same people lambasting him are the same people who would deride judgement calls that harsh against someone who's on the spectrum, yet somehow he's an acceptable target.
Yes, he's awkward as all hell, and yes, he makes people uncomfortable sometimes and has no social filter, but his contributions are too many to be ignored and his behavior to me seems to be without malice.
This is nothing more than revenge of the non-nerds.
The younger generation of technologists tend to have much better social skills than those of us "olds" who grew up on BBSes and the purple 8086 book. Writing software is now cool, so the newer cadre of developers are the same mental archetype that stuffed us into lockers for not being normal. They just do different things than play football now.
They intend to punish us for the crime of not having been properly socialized by our peers.
119 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] thread(I also think he would be fantastic making a cameo in a bit part in Disney's Mandalorian series, bitching about "damned proprietary code" used in imperial droids that makes them hard to reprogram but that's another topic for another message board...)
"There is a perverse movement among women to think that they should carry fetuses with Downs' syndrome to term, rather than abort them and try again. ... Next, people will take thalidomide to demonstrate how they can love babies born without limbs." - RMS
But I would understand if people that are part of the FSF would not like to associate with him.
RMS may not have much in terms of money, but he has a lot of influence due to his stature in the libre software movement, and with influence comes responsibility and accountability to those in the movement he started.
Why is his goal the only one that matters? Is he a prophet, or is he just a guy who created a compelling idea? Should the movement continue to be centered on him as a personality? The FSF movement is by definition far bigger than him, and it can reasonably contain other related goals. Perhaps those with other goals can make peace with keeping him around, perhaps they can't.
Does "support RMS being on the FSF board for life" mean supporting him on everything he says, or even suggest supporting him for this quote?
Irrespective of any moral or ethical concerns, keeping Stallman doesn't seem very pragmatic and forward-looking for an organization that is hurting for young blood anyway.
A leader should be able to recognize when he's driving people away, and act accordingly.
He is the single most consistent arbiter of open source, clinging to views we all here admire; With such a dedication that it is hard to imagine ANYONE, even fictional, who would be better suited for that particular position (head of FSF).
Aleniating people is in and of itself not a problem for a leader, it works the same way in any other area: Would you want to attract people to Black Lives Matter who would be alienated by Martin Luther King? Do you really find it problematic that the buddhists don't try to attract people who can't stand the Dalai Lama?
Is it really a Problem that the FSF didn't attract people who would critizise Stallman ONLY on points which have no bearing on the mission of the FSF?
And the article really makes a great point about how most of that criticism consists of misrepresentation, faulty analysis and double standards. Keeping people like that out of the FSF is not only fine by me, it is absolute paramount to keep it working.
FSF is a _fenomenally_ successful organisation in achieving their mission. Free Software is everywhere, it has spawned endless businessess and has completely changed the way people create software.
Of course not.
I just say that I understand if people would not like no associate with him.
Making a choice because of a random opinion voiced once - which is completely immaterial as RMS himself is not a woman and his opinions about personal decisions of women have absolutely zero importance (which does not preclude him from voicing them, everybody can have an opinion, just some of them are pretty worthless and useless) - is just stupid. It's manually disabling your own intellect, removing all the huge body of useful information you could base your decisions on and concentrate your attention on one immaterial detail. It's like you being offered an awesome job in a great company with huge salary and you quitting on the first day because one person in your office has a pen of a wrong shade on his desk. I can only attribute such decisions to performative virtue signalling, because the alternative would be insanity.
We choose to disassociate open source from anything to do with RMS and FSF.
If open source could only be done by sexual abusers and misogynists it would indeed be sad.
> If open source could only be done by sexual abusers
This is an extremely wrong "if" which nobody actually claimed before you. By implying that your opponents said something like that, you are lying. Do not do that.
> it would indeed be sad.
It would be, but it's not because your initial assumption is false. What is currently sad instead is that you have to resort to falsities to advance your point. Or maybe not - maybe it's just a sign you have nothing better in your quiver.
This is the cherry on the top: "Next, people will take thalidomide to demonstrate how they can love babies born without limbs."
I'm sure all the victims of thalidomide with be pleased at this mockery.
FSF doesn't need a chode like RMS.
* https://stallman.org/notes/2020-jul-oct.html#23_September_20...
* https://www.stallman.org/archives/2021-jan-apr.html#18_Febru...
* https://www.stallman.org/archives/2018-mar-jun.html#4_March_...
The fact you actually want this is beyond cringe.
- https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
> According to the Atlantic, a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking point,” it turns out the numbers don’t fit that narrative. Turns out just about everyone thinks we need more free speech. This includes large pluralities of all races (e.g. 75% of African Americans, 87% of Hispanics) and all ages (e.g. 79% of Americans under age 24).
> A 2017 poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, found that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have and 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.
Edit: Speaking of, somebody is flagging this story (to be clear, not this comment) to keep people from even discussing the topic. As of writing, they succeeded. We need a “this shouldn’t be flagged” button
It would be interesting to know what are these "important discussions".
> 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs
I don't think it literally prevents them, more like it makes them scared to share their political beliefs for fear of being called out when those are not "acceptable" beliefs. If anyone can give me an example of some political belief that is not justified in being "unacceptable", I'd be happy to re-evaluate this situation as being bad.
But who knows in ten years the opposite reaction might be true.
Honestly? No.
And the problem with the numbers in that poll is that there is no reason to think that all those people assign the same meaning to the words. Everyone's in favor of "free speech," but can they articulate a nuanced definition of it and the effects on society of that definition?
From their announcement on the subject:
"""
Today, we’re making an update to address this gap: Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities.
"""
This applies to your entire comment, but the quoted line is most salient: Be careful not to fall into the victimized underdog mentality. There are legitimate concerns on both sides here, but there is a ton of noise in the form of pointing to imagined persons/crowds and accusing them of persecution. For example, submissions are frequently flagged for the poor quality of discussion they trigger - not simply because "somebody" is "trying to keep people from even discussing it", which is an easy sentiment to reach for, and falls under the category of fallacy that boils down to "our sociopolitical enemies are simply evil - don't you agree, fellow people on my side?".
I do not believe the comments in this thread constitute a low quality discussion. The story should not have been flagged, in my opinion at least, and this action has stopped some of the only balanced discussion of the topic I’ve seen online since the story first broke. It has people from both sides being mostly polite and has links to some high quality material. It’s just a topic that many people are upset by. Also, after getting flagged, they git repo saw the rate of new PR signings almost flatline
I think this can be appropriate when the situation is dire and all other courses of action have been exhausted. I'm just not sure this is such a situation.
In addition to not being particularly constructive, I agree with your point: the mob mentality means if I'm interested in discussing how to proceed _before_ everyone on the board of the FSF is fired, I open myself to the same mob that wants it done _now_. This makes discussing an already difficult problem significantly harder and more risky. Even if I bring myself to engage in conversation, many of the more deliberative folks I would like to hear from won't engage, likely for the same reasons that gave me pause. I encountered this to a surprising degree reading through comments on Ars Technica's coverage of this[0].
On the topic of the FSF, I really value that RMS has a very mature and well-considered understanding of the dynamics of computers and their software, and how those can shape society. But the points about him making others uncomfortable on a routine basis are concerning, and I think a more charismatic leader would certainly be an improvement. I would want that leader to have a similarly strong understanding of the core issues, though. I wonder if someone like Eben Moglen could perform in such a role. Come to think of it, it might be cool if Cory Doctorow could play a public-facing role for the FSF.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/free-software-ad...
This seems irrational. For example, I both "believe that political correctness is a problem in our country" and believe that "the free speech movement", in the modern context, is composed largely of "racist dog-whistles" and "far-right talking points". They aren't mutually exclusive opinions, yet the author writes as though they obviously are. Besides believing that "political correctness" has silenced important discussions, I also believe it's only one example of many forms of irrational side-taking and hatred that have silenced important discussions, committed across the political spectrum. It seems like the author is taking advantage of the instantly recognizable noun "political correctness" as a way to package a biased opinion that purposefully ignores closely related things that are damaging discussion and civility just as dramatically.
I personally know two women who've been sexually harassed by this creep. He has no place in leadership.
I've had such encounters with someone many on HN would know. I don't hold anyone accountable for mentioning their name or talking nicely about them because how could they possibly know what happened behind closed doors?
Let's let him continue to advocate for free software and ensure he is able to support himself, but let's also try not to discourage people from participating because they're in fear of being harrassed or excluded.
I won't sign either letter, but of the two, I think this one is better. Neither has the right conclusion. The other suggests he be banned from the community entirely.
Edit: the other letter has a lot higher caliber of signers. I think there are a lot of influential people in the FLOSS community who haven't signed either though. Perhaps a new letter should be made that is just about removing him from the board of the FSF and from other leadership positions (including the GNU Project).
rms, if you by any chance read this: you're supposed to make the ladies laugh. If you talk to women (and talk only, leering is verboten), and make smile and laugh, sometimes a brassiere comes off and noone is unhappy afterwards.
You can stop Stallman, and you should, lest his ideals and the FSF drop further into irrelevance.
Since the other side (non-autists) can usually not distinguish between disregarding social norms on purpose (being a jerk) or by accident (autism), autists are often judged as jerks. Escpecially since the high frequency of "social fuckups" rules out "normal" human mistakes.
On one hand I'm totally against cancel culture for things like:
- How you voted(e.g. Trump/Biden)
- Your political views on any subject
On the other hand, Stallman has called for the killing of babies with Down Syndrome.
So, could I associate with someone like that?
Could I comfortably work with someone that(for example) calls for the killing of babies if they where jewish, black etc.
Has he though? Has he actioned this idea, or was it just something he blogged about amongst 1000's of other thoughts that floated through his head?
One of my life lessons I think is worth pointing out, is that people's actions are far more important than what they say. And this is the problem with modern western society: someone says something stupid and everyone jumps on them as an opportunity to further their own cause.
So yes you can associate with someone like this, unless they DO something terrible.
Edit: I don't have an opinion either way, just clarifying that I believe advocacy is action.
How is this in any way equivalent? Being jewish or black are not disabilities. Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.
I personally think abortion is horrible, but aborting babies who are going to enter life with awful disabilities is the least objectionable form of abortion there is.
You should be outraged at the millions of perfectly healthy babies that are aborted every year just for convenience. Not this.
I disagree. Have you ever met one person with that condition?
The ones I've met, are happier than 99% of the people I know.
People with DS frequently report greater life satisfaction that people without DS. The problem isn't DS, it's how people with DS get treated by the rest of society that's a problem.
I've been in OSS for decades. I've actually argued with RMS personally on certain subject (he called me evil, which I disagree with, but that's not the point). I've read a lot of his writings and a lot of writings about him. I never heard about this until today. I have no idea what RMS actually said on the subject (you didn't provide a quote, as it usually happens) but whatever he said, it's clearly wasn't something very important among all his body of work, if mostly nobody heard or cared about this so far.
In fact, I can't bring myself to care about RMS's views on the subject right now - even if your most uncharitable interpretation is completely correct (I am 99% sure it's not, but even in unlikely case it is) it's completely immaterial. RMS has never been and never will be in a position that such an opinion would matter for anything, he has never killed any babies and has never contributed or influenced anything that mattered in this area. He did, however, contributed a lot and mattered a lot in other areas.
One of the most idiotic and toxic features of cancel culture is reducing the immense complexity of the person's life to one - almost always distorted and misinterpreted - statement and focusing on it as if it were the only point ever. There's no "someone like that". "Someone like that" is a bullshit - no one is "like that", and "like that" is an insanely awful criteria to guide your actions. Literally everybody has done something in their life some people may not like. One can disagree with somebody on some subject and still agree with them on other subjects. That's how human society works. People can not be reduced to a single "like that", and shouldn't be. Get out of Twitter and purge it out of your system, for the benefit of yourself and humanity.
The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot.
That's your response? "too long, didn't read"? Well, good job, I guess, here's your participation trophy.
> The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot.
No, it actually says nothing at all. That's the whole point, which you may have understood if you bothered to actually read. RMS's views on random subjects is just idle thoughts of a random dude, and nobody in any community owes anybody any care about what random dude once said about random subjects. If RMS were nominated for the Secretary of Health, then his views on reproductive decisions may be slightly more relevant. Call me back when that happens.
It's really not that hard.
I actually agree with this.
I never said "cancel him", I said it would be hard to support.
Although I strongly disagree with what he said, I can and should be able to work with people I strongly disagree with, otherwise society would collapse.
I have actually changed my mind :o
I may disagree with what someone says but I will fight with them for their right to say it.
I'm transphobic because I will never under any circumstances be with a transgender man who will never be a woman.
There - Will I be canceled?
He did not say that. You make it sound like he's suggesting babies actually born should be killed. No. He's supporting the current practice of testing the fetus during pregnancy, and aborting if it has down syndrome.
Warning to others, this is what happens when you get caught up in cancel-culture wokeness, repeating allegations of others without verification. You end up repeating falsehoods as justfication, take things out of context, and confirm to onlookers you don't have the ability to form your own opinions through rational, logical thought.
They don't have actual positions they believe in any more. They just have weapons they can use against people.
On the other hand, many of the signers support abortion in general, so it would be hypocritical of me to support them too.
Would you mind providing a citation on this? Because I have yet to really read about it anywhere else.
EDIT: Ah, so it was a rather uncharitable interpretation on his views on abortion [0]. Again, a symptom of someone with zero social awareness and I'm sure it'd be thought to be beyond the pale for some people, but far from a genocidal maniac.
[0] https://stallman.org/archives/2016-sep-dec.html#31_October_2...
> I hosted rms many years ago in the 90’s, what was supposed to be hosting your hero for a ~3 day thing became a ~2 month nightmare. I joined a small club “never host rms ever again”. To cope with it, I used to collect the horror stories.
> He met a woman on the first evening in town, and extended his stay. One day, I came home from work and she had moved in.
I don't personally know any autistic person, but this doesn't sound like autism. How many autistic person visits a new town, goes into a bar, and brings back a woman to your friend's bedroom, without asking the friend first? This sounds more like a run-of-the-mill asshole.
His victims should not be blamed, but people around him have to admit there are reasons he is compared to a spoiled child. This has to stop.
For his importance and the willingness to defend points of view which may be inconvenient for most people, he is needed in a movement which requires such a level of dedication and sacrifice. I don't believe there is anybody else who is capable living the way he lives just to stand on the very strict ethical side. He is very much needed.
Cancel culture should be handled carefully, for punishment should not make people give up on trying to improve. But a group should not silence when bad behavior happens.
If rms is to come back caution must be taken. He must be warned at the smallest mistakes, should not be handled as a never wrong semi-god and be encouraged to know when he hurts people and apologize for that. Otherwise the more people and the free software movement will be hurt.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545420
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789
[5] https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
. .
Some well-regarded papers on sexism in CS, which are still relevant as is evident from some comments in this thread.
[1] Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists (Ellen Spertus, 1991)
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7040
[2] How to Encourage Women in Linux (Val Henson, 2002)
https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/
[3] What Happens to Us Does Not Happen to Most of You (Kathryn S. McKinley, 2018)
https://www.sigarch.org/what-happens-to-us-does-not-happen-t...
[4] Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, 2001)
https://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-P...
[5] The Elephant in the Valley (by Michele Madansky and Trae Vassallo, 2015)
https://www.elephantinthevalley.com/
Takes guts to make a statement like that. Bravo.
Here's a link about Stallman for the many HN readers who obviously don't know anything about the guy. I urge you to read it before forming your opinion about "cancel culture".
https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/richard_stallmans_disgrac...
Yes, he's awkward as all hell, and yes, he makes people uncomfortable sometimes and has no social filter, but his contributions are too many to be ignored and his behavior to me seems to be without malice.
The younger generation of technologists tend to have much better social skills than those of us "olds" who grew up on BBSes and the purple 8086 book. Writing software is now cool, so the newer cadre of developers are the same mental archetype that stuffed us into lockers for not being normal. They just do different things than play football now.
They intend to punish us for the crime of not having been properly socialized by our peers.
Taking unprincipled, unreasoned positions is more fashionable.
Which tendency is more productive?