Very short version:
Deceased CS pioneer gets linked to Epstein rape island. Stallman correctly points out that the deceased is unable to defend himself and makes a nuanced argument about the details of the case and the lack of evidence that the deceased had sex with anyone on the island.
Stallman then gets obliterated by a public incensed about the Epstein case. A public that is unwilling to discuss the fine nuances between pedophilia and hebephilia and sees such takes as nothing more than bunny ears lawyering. To add on, several women report Stallman being somewhat creepy towards them. It's an absolute PR disaster.
Nothing that Stallman said about Minsky was incorrect. Stallman was 100% in the right. He was misunderstood. But, in my opinion, that was entirely on him. Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood.
> Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood.
He was reported as saying a girl was "willing". What he said was "probably presented as willing" - i.e. Minsky was likely unaware she was coerced. When it takes four words to give enough context, but journalists repeat only one, that goes beyond reckless disregard for the truth, and into malice.
It was not impossible to be misunderstood. It was impossible for smear merchants to resist. Don't let the Gell-Mann amnesia make you forget this when you read another hit job that has had context surgically removed, or even the offending words themselves, and we are simply to trust the writer that something was e.g. "hateful".
This is one of stallman's blunders. This was impossible to be not misunderstood.
Posts aren't read carefully and completely. That's just a fact of life, no surgical removal necessary. when people read about "willing" in context of trafficked rape victims, they ask themselves what the fuck the point of mentioning that is. Is it okay to rape a teenager if they represent willing?
Of course that is not at all what Stallman was implying, and if he was just some dude I would have been very sympathetic. But he was the president of a lobby organisation. He can't go around being completely unaware that it's not only about what you say, but also how you say it and what words you use. He can't believe in a world where everyone else will calmly and carefully engage with the whole of his argument.
Also, for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept - especially when the topic is as sensitive as this.
Stallman was, again, 100% in the right but the way he made is argument could only lead to this outcome.
> for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept
But the smear merchants couldn't take the risk. I agree, Stallman shouldn't have been commenting on it - as the face of free software, he needs to think carefully about appearances, regardless of being technically correct.
Where we disagree is in presenting journalists repeating the smears as merely confused. They can write 1000+ word articles about the statement, but can't spend more than one word quoting the statement itself?
Willfully misrepresenting someone and accidentally misreading them are not at all the same. The campaign against Stallman was obviously not one angry person who didn't read his words closely and ended up arguing against something he never said. It was a coordinated smear campaign to remove people who believe in free software from public view.
He was misunderstood, at the wrong time (this is linked to Epstein's case). Acted like I would expect my autist friend to act (except Stallman doesn't have the same speech impediment most Asperger as deep on the spectrum have, which doesn't help in this case) to defend himself. It didn't work, people dug up an uniformed take on pedophilia from 20 years ago to make his more recent take seems worst than it is, and people found out he acted flirty/creepy in the workplace (which I mean, yeah, nowadays it's creepy to try to flirt in the workplace, and it should be worse if you're socially awkward).
To be honest, I think most people do not care about his Epstein and pedophilia comments, but the 'creepy in the workplace' hit home for a lot of people in the FOSS community (it did for me), so he's 'soft canceled' for it.
I wouldn't mind him as a speaker, IC, advisor... I do mind him as a director/boss/manager
/executive.
The main benefice is eclipsing legitimate voice advocating open source since many years in a very radical way and often at cost for private companies which are open source washing their predatory business practices.
So basically all old whites males figures who spent years developing GNU and linux and many library for no benefits and for just empowering all mankind, are just pushed away, in the worst depictables ways so that capitalistic predation can extend everywhere.
Open sources, Linux, run everythings in industry worldwide. Capitalist cannot let the governance of thoses projects in the hand of aging white anarchist males.
Therefor the capitalist predators use their puppet "woke" asset to silence and clean all open source movement from their enemies.
This started with code of conduct, pushed by transgender who are the most perverse form of misoginy.
I understand most misogyny accusations against him are wrong. And every accusations that do not involve misogyny are wrong.
I also understand than the few misogyny accusations that are true aren't really misogyny from his point of view, because he is just naturally awkward, and would probably fumble just as hard with males if he was gay. So it was a bit unjust, the attention he received from media.
That said, I am a guy who received 'attentions' from a superior (f) once. I wish I had spoken up at the time, but this should be exised from our culture. It shouldn't matter if you are neuroatypical like Stallman or not, this comportment belongs to the 70s/80s, and should be called out every time, no matter who does it. The workplace isn't a matchmaking facility.
I know this is hard when you are on the spectrum, had to learn to lie and how to recognize emotions to follow ineffective social rules (like no flirting in the workplace when this might be the best place to find a person with common interests!). But I repeat, you had to _learn to lie_, often by yourself, sometimes with a psychologist help, and probably managed to surmont greater incomprehensible social rules than 'do not flirt where inappropriate'
I once brought up RMS, in relation to a project a friend was working on, on misc@google, when I worked at Google in my 20s. This was circa 2005 or 2006 maybe. Within minutes I was called out by female engineers for promoting someone I'd come to learn was well known to be pretty sexist. That was about 20 years ago and the details of events shared are lost to me now but the sting of promoting a project he was on (and was later removed from) is still there.
>he had to be convinced by victims that victimization is a problem
You're complaining that he came to the same conclusion as you, but first had to be convinced, since his first opinion wasn't the same as yours. No winning move. One wrong step = cancelled for life.
This is why I provided the first link. Follow the threads. This is not a single event, this is a theme.
But yes, I do think people should be accountable for what they say. (I know the fun term is "cancel" but let's call it what it is, shall we?) If victims of child abuse have to be called to account, so that _he_ may be convinced, then I do not think he is a person we should hold in high regard.
The particular child abuse comment was retracted, there is nothing more to be done. You are holding him accountable for something for which he has already accounted. You are laser focused on the one wrong step.
Think of him what you will, that is your right, but brigading against someone for something said 20 years ago and later retracted is petty.(He was also arguing on the assumption that children can give consent, and that consent=> no bad outcomes.)
funny to me that this image has reached the level of mimetic saturation that you can infer exactly what the image is going to be without opening it. many such cases but i always think it's interesting.
23 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 58.2 ms ] threadStallman then gets obliterated by a public incensed about the Epstein case. A public that is unwilling to discuss the fine nuances between pedophilia and hebephilia and sees such takes as nothing more than bunny ears lawyering. To add on, several women report Stallman being somewhat creepy towards them. It's an absolute PR disaster.
Nothing that Stallman said about Minsky was incorrect. Stallman was 100% in the right. He was misunderstood. But, in my opinion, that was entirely on him. Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood.
He was reported as saying a girl was "willing". What he said was "probably presented as willing" - i.e. Minsky was likely unaware she was coerced. When it takes four words to give enough context, but journalists repeat only one, that goes beyond reckless disregard for the truth, and into malice.
It was not impossible to be misunderstood. It was impossible for smear merchants to resist. Don't let the Gell-Mann amnesia make you forget this when you read another hit job that has had context surgically removed, or even the offending words themselves, and we are simply to trust the writer that something was e.g. "hateful".
Posts aren't read carefully and completely. That's just a fact of life, no surgical removal necessary. when people read about "willing" in context of trafficked rape victims, they ask themselves what the fuck the point of mentioning that is. Is it okay to rape a teenager if they represent willing?
Of course that is not at all what Stallman was implying, and if he was just some dude I would have been very sympathetic. But he was the president of a lobby organisation. He can't go around being completely unaware that it's not only about what you say, but also how you say it and what words you use. He can't believe in a world where everyone else will calmly and carefully engage with the whole of his argument.
Also, for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept - especially when the topic is as sensitive as this.
Stallman was, again, 100% in the right but the way he made is argument could only lead to this outcome.
But the smear merchants couldn't take the risk. I agree, Stallman shouldn't have been commenting on it - as the face of free software, he needs to think carefully about appearances, regardless of being technically correct.
Where we disagree is in presenting journalists repeating the smears as merely confused. They can write 1000+ word articles about the statement, but can't spend more than one word quoting the statement itself?
To be honest, I think most people do not care about his Epstein and pedophilia comments, but the 'creepy in the workplace' hit home for a lot of people in the FOSS community (it did for me), so he's 'soft canceled' for it.
I wouldn't mind him as a speaker, IC, advisor... I do mind him as a director/boss/manager /executive.
So basically all old whites males figures who spent years developing GNU and linux and many library for no benefits and for just empowering all mankind, are just pushed away, in the worst depictables ways so that capitalistic predation can extend everywhere.
Open sources, Linux, run everythings in industry worldwide. Capitalist cannot let the governance of thoses projects in the hand of aging white anarchist males.
Therefor the capitalist predators use their puppet "woke" asset to silence and clean all open source movement from their enemies.
This started with code of conduct, pushed by transgender who are the most perverse form of misoginy.
TLDR: it's all about money and power.
I also understand than the few misogyny accusations that are true aren't really misogyny from his point of view, because he is just naturally awkward, and would probably fumble just as hard with males if he was gay. So it was a bit unjust, the attention he received from media.
That said, I am a guy who received 'attentions' from a superior (f) once. I wish I had spoken up at the time, but this should be exised from our culture. It shouldn't matter if you are neuroatypical like Stallman or not, this comportment belongs to the 70s/80s, and should be called out every time, no matter who does it. The workplace isn't a matchmaking facility.
I know this is hard when you are on the spectrum, had to learn to lie and how to recognize emotions to follow ineffective social rules (like no flirting in the workplace when this might be the best place to find a person with common interests!). But I repeat, you had to _learn to lie_, often by yourself, sometimes with a psychologist help, and probably managed to surmont greater incomprehensible social rules than 'do not flirt where inappropriate'
I'll even help with a starting point: https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/richard_stallmans_disgrac...
I once brought up RMS, in relation to a project a friend was working on, on misc@google, when I worked at Google in my 20s. This was circa 2005 or 2006 maybe. Within minutes I was called out by female engineers for promoting someone I'd come to learn was well known to be pretty sexist. That was about 20 years ago and the details of events shared are lost to me now but the sting of promoting a project he was on (and was later removed from) is still there.
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
(He himself recanted the statement years later but he had to be convinced by victims that victimization is a problem.)
But yes, I do think people should be accountable for what they say. (I know the fun term is "cancel" but let's call it what it is, shall we?) If victims of child abuse have to be called to account, so that _he_ may be convinced, then I do not think he is a person we should hold in high regard.
The particular child abuse comment was retracted, there is nothing more to be done. You are holding him accountable for something for which he has already accounted. You are laser focused on the one wrong step.
Think of him what you will, that is your right, but brigading against someone for something said 20 years ago and later retracted is petty.(He was also arguing on the assumption that children can give consent, and that consent=> no bad outcomes.)
> Stallman was unpopular not because he was some sort of a monster harassing women, but because he was seen as unattractive, clueless, and bizarre.
So that's extremely plausible from my perspective. Probably further along the spectrum than me.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/663/485/1f8...