Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals
perens.com
perens.com
So your company should have people with handicap, but that have no effect on others.
And diverse genders, but you should consider them all the same, even if we know we have diverse bodies, needs and behaviors.
And diverse cultural and religious background, but it should be ignored like if we all agreed on how life works.
Living together do mean we have to live by common rules and try to fit, but you can't have your cake and both way: if you increase diversity, you will increase friction.
If you ask for diversity and you want them to be just like you, think just like you, or act just like you, it's not going to work.
That is a false statement. We want people to behave respectfully of others, not the same way we do.
It looks to be about a superficial diversity: of ethnicity, sex, gender, (dis-)ability etc, but not of thought.
The diversity movement is primarily concerned with allowing diversity outside of the core issues, while strictly forbidding it within, and purging those who don't comply, regardless of their gender, sex, ethnicity etc.
I haven't thought about this earlier, but there is some truth to it. When I'm with my rightish colleagues, I can basically say anything I like, the worst I risk is being called a stupid commie. Of course they know we have very different opinions, but there is no problem - basically I feel free to discuss anything.
With my leftish friends, I really need to be much more careful. Frankly, I'm not up to date about all the current developments especially in the trans sphere, and I'm not sure if the thing that appears in my mind is the right one to say. And when I say something wrong, they are really outraged. They take it personally. So I find myself a bit more quiet when I' with them, and I keep my opinions about important issues to myself.
This is not a friend, imo. There are plenty of leftists that aren't performative and don't practice consistent outrage. I've known some of these people too and they're exhausting. Do yourself a favor and get new leftist friends.
In practice, respect is a spectrum that includes people sensitivity, education, social context, legality, and is not an absolute.
Drawing a picture of God may be worship for some, and disrespectful for others. For more daily simple things, it's the same.
If you want an autistic person to behave like you, with empathy, you are not asking for respect. The person may not be disrespecting you.
I had an asperger in my class last year, always interrupting me during my explanations. You can enrage that it was disrespect. Or you can understand he just didn't see he was disturbing the flow of the course.
Many on twitter would have accused him on mansplaining. I just asked him directly to keep interruptions limited to the time break. He complied, happy to have a clear instruction on how to deal with the situation.
You don’t even need to define absolutes, for god’s sakes. The point is that people shouldn’t bring their politics to the office, and they do that by not discriminating on anyone on the basis of anything, which necessitates respecting and valuing everyone equally. The problem is that, simply, people don’t do that and actively refuse to do that, because they feel that their inherently divisive views shouldn’t sow divisiveness in the office. It makes no sense.
Society is currently not vegan in majority, so you could say they should adapt. Also you could adapt the point of view they are trying to do the least of harm, and are suffering from the harm you do. Then, you should adapt.
Diversity is bound to cause friction. That's just how it is.
There is no simple good answer to that.
It's always case by case. What's right today it not what's right tomorrow.
[0]https://fablesofaesop.com/the-miller-his-son-and-their-ass.h...
But, going back to the variables that diversity actually pertains to, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, it’s not as ambiguous and complicated as you make it out to be. You cannot be discriminating people on those grounds because all that really matters in the workplace is what each individual brings to the table. You know, the output that you’re actually getting compensated for. I run a small business and I like to draw talent from a diverse pool of applicants, but anybody who makes sexist or racist remarks isn’t getting hired or is definitely getting fired because I don’t like assholes who introduce non-work related friction in the office, though I really just don’t like working with assholes.
What you also said about the minority adjusting to the majority is just disagreeable. There are so many periods in history where majority of humans believed something about the world that is also wrong. There also always tends to be an objective basis of right and wrong where a clear purpose is defined, so maybe you should clarify your purpose instead of dealing with ethics from a purely abstract level.
One person can be offended, but its on the person to take on themself. You can go anywhere you want with this.
If I masturbate on my chair during my break, I don't harm anybody. Do you take offense ? Why ? I don't harm you. But the majority of society would feels it's weird, so you would not allow it. No more "the offended person should just keep the peace" here.
Besides, with your example, you can't hire an autistic person.
The person will cause turmoil.
Just like a person in a wheelchair will need an elevator.
So there is some sort of diversity that you decide up front not to accept by design.
> But, going back to the variables that diversity actually pertains to, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion,
You are limited diversity to a class of parameters you valid. Diversity is, by definition, completely open. You don't decide to limit what's diverse. People are people, they are different. That's diversity.
> the output that you’re actually getting compensated for
People are more than robots outputting thing. They interact and create likes and dislikes. They talk about something else than work, or they don't feel they belong. The "only" work culture is an illusion, work doesn't happen in a vacuum.
But I can see you are starting to use words such as "asshole", which indicate to me this conversation stopped being about sharing idea.
I assure you I read all your arguments and took them in consideration carefully, and wish you a good day.
You can find traits which are signs of respect in one culture and yet offensive in others. The only way to reconcile that is to not attempt to impose your definition of respect onto others. Not always super easy to do, of course.
I would be perfectly fine if a development of a project would be done by strangers behind incognito aliases. I don't care if the contributed code comes from Black woman or Caucasian man or some cat who had learned to code. I believe that it is absolutely irrelevant topic that is forced on the industry by whatever reasons. If is not like the barrier to entry is too high: anyone who can afford a $500 PC and internet can have access to all the learning materials in the world.
1. The meaning of $500 varies wildly across earth. It's not much work to figure that out. 2. It depends on the kind of project. If you want a community project, a project that lives and breathes, you don't just need to put out code, but also inspire use and new contributors. For that, a pleasant atmosphere helps, and have existing contributors seem approachable. For that, you need to project not being a tiny club of likeminded, or worse, outright similar, people. This tends to discouraged interest and participation. It also tends towards a particular internal culture having way too much overlap with a particular culture is my experience. Teams consisting of 30 year old male computer scientists will have a particular kind of banter/small talk utterly incompatible with many other backgrounds. Not having too much of one kind of team member protects you from this, making on boarding easier.
Oh, come on! This argument appears so often, but it is absolutely irrelevant: a person without a computer is unlikely to participate in the Free Software movement, with rms at the helm or without.
And living and breathing projects: all projects would be more healthy if they were all strict to business. No activism of any kind, but the one aimed at improving the product. You don't need to fight for gender equality if you don't care about the sex of the contributor!
If sex means zero to you, then both sexes are truly equal, because 0 equals 0.
It makes optimizing harder, add friction and augment costs.
But it also force evolution, and make a system more adapted and resiliant, healthier on the long run.
As usual, it depends, and intensity matters. Those questions don't have a definitive anwser, even cute ones like "just be nice to each others".
But regardless or whether we do need diveristy, it is promoted currently as the progressive point of view. If you go on social media and claim we don't want diversity, you will have a serious backslash. From the same persons that will ask autistic persons to behave like an average person. Hence my point on the dissonance.
The point of having the knowledge that our bodies and needs are different as dictated by sex (not gender, if you’re talking about bodies) is to respect and value each other equally despite the things that we cannot change about our biologies.
If what you just said is how adversaries of gender equality and women empowerment think, then it is no wonder that there’s a lot of toxic disagreement on the matter. I suppose it’s difficult for such people to wrap their heads around why having gender-based sports divisions is justified and not inherently sexist, and that both are equally dignified categories.
Why? That's like, the entire basis of every organization, that supporters don't have to support it. If a company selling a product behaves in a way you don't want to support you stop buying, if a charity stops supporting a cause you stop supporting it, etc.
Some obvious answers:
Companies are made of people, so decisions that are made are often a reflection of the values of those people, not necessarily those of some country or another.
That some group of companies tends to be American is unsurprising since (a) America owns tons of 'loud' industries like tech, so it will always seem this way, and (b) unsurprisingly the values of those who make up a company are tied to some extent by their background.
Companies may feel that their targeted consumer groups are likely sympathetic with some specific social norm.
Companies may feel that the issue is in fact bad for business ie: that someone is a bad fit for a role, is incompetent, etc.
etc
It's so obvious I wonder why one would even ask.
If RMS were a leader at a church or youth club, yes we'd rightly worry about where that view was coming from. But your data being your business is squarely within the goals of the FSF, and RMS staking out unpopular opinions based on their implications for his philosophy is precisely why he has been so prescient.
These days the big difference isn't so much about who's writing the rules so much as its about the tools available to these people/companies/interest groups and their respective motives/criteria for using them.
Unsupported claim.
People with a manic depressive disorder can have both great highs and deep lows at different periods.
We should be tolerant of everyone as much as we can.
That is completely different if you are but of those jokes and if you know that those jokes are funny to people, because they express what others think about you.
The strongest plausible interpretation of what he said is he understood the distinction between clinical and subclinical presentations and the part about rhythm was incidental. It's clear he had some understanding at least. Insisting he must have thought rhythm was a diagnostic criterion and that completely invalidates his understanding is the weakest plausible interpretation at best.
And, this isn't directed at you personally, but I think a lot of people who bring "Stallman says he doesn't have it" into the argument don't display any awareness of the concept of BAP.
Edit: I regret saying anything please carry on praising the guy who treats people like garbage because people enable him. I’ll just go back to doing my best to triangulate my emotional reactions with empathy so I can survive and have moderately healthy relationships.
I'm like, it's his hill he can die on it.
Stallman seems to have been protected from normal social feedback at least since starting at MIT as a graduate student in the 1970s.
Most reasonably functioning autistic people seem able to improve their social skills, at least to some degree, as they mature, if only as a conscious act ("masking").
The bubble Stallman lived in seems to either have prevented him from doing that, or worse, possibly allowed him to willfully ignore such personal development.
You see this unproductive coddling in the Perens article, which simply assumes Stallman's "handicap" is a fact of life over which he couldn't possibly have any conscious control.
In my experience, that's rarely the case, unless you're dealing with much more severely handicapped individuals, who may not even be verbal.
Stallman is not a janitor but in top management (I have the highest respect for janitors but they are not required to be a role model of the organization).
"Thus, they are bound by the Americans with Disability Act and other applicable law to make accommodations for a handicapped employee."
Totally agree, but I won't make a blind person the watchout guy on a ship. There are limits to inclusion.
[Edit] HN you made me giggle this morning. This gets quite some downvotes and for a short time was Karma negative - so people try to cancel me with downvotes for my opinion because they think RMS is cancelled for his opinion. Believing two different things at the same time - or believing one thing by doing the opposite is the real turing test. Nice insight, thanks.
This doesn't imply it's not an irrational action, i.e. you may justifiably avoid a person/thing that is linked with immoral behavior even if there is no sentence (say, avoid bitcoin because of climate issues).
When RMS is advocating for zoophilia and necrophilia (he's finally relented on pedophilia, though, after many years of also defending "consensual" pedophilia), it hurts the advocacy for his other causes. You can't effectively simultaneously champion two such disparate causes without one cause seeping into the other.
Edit: Sigh, here it is, let's trot it out again, 2006 is when he was defending pedophilia:
> 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
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
It's also absolutely not libel, and it's rather silly to throw such terms around.
Stallman defended legalization of pedophilia by name (and in the context of an overt political effort to eliminate age of consent entirely) and only recanted that support after the controversy over Minsky erupted in 2019 (which, given the somewhat related subject matter, also brought heightened, though not the first, attention to that advocacy.)
The point Stallman made, in the most deliberately urticant and confrontational possible way, is:
Are you willing to incarcerate people for drawings? However disturbing the subject?
> 26 October 2014 (Prison for cartoon) A man in the UK has been sentenced for prison for having a cartoon depicting a fictional child in some sort of sexual situation.
The advocates of this kind of censorship started by saying they were trying to protect real children from being abused in order to take their photos. Making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.
However, they have already gone far beyond that. No child was harmed in drawing the cartoon.
To criminalize possession of copies of anything published — no matter what it is — is oppressive, and leads to many other forms of tyranny.
Now you have read something you had not read before. I am glad to have shown you something you didn't know.
The question at hand is whether he's an appropriate person to place in a leadership position of an activism organization. And frankly, there's no "should" there - there's only the blunt question of whether he's helping the organization achieve its activism goals or not. If his personal beliefs or actions are making the targets of the activism not be interested in listening, then he's undermining the work of his fellow activists, whether or not he intends to. If his affiliation with the organization threatens funding, then he's putting the organization at risk, whether or not we think that ought to be a relevant factor for donors. (And it goes the other way too, of course.)
The goal of the free software movement is to convince people that software freedom is important and to produce free software. It is a hard enough task. Changing the goals to be to convince people that, first, they should stop caring about Richard Stallman's views, and then after that, that they should care about software freedom, just makes the task even harder.
Is it a decision? Yes.
Is it a decision made in the name of public interest? Yes.
Is it a decision that relates to some kind of transgression? Yes.
Is it a decision that seriously affects a person's liberty and pursuit of happiness? Yes.
Is it a decision made out of a fair trial? No.
Just because the labels "justice, diversity, inclusivity, equity" are displayed on a mob that harasses and assaults people doesn't make it less of a mob.
Also Stallman didn't "hurt" anyone. This is ridiculous.
Generally speaking, a blind person can't do anything to improve their vision.
A person with a social disability can learn coping strategies to perform better in social situations, in spite of their disability. In the literature on ASD, this process even has a name – "masking". They may never be as good at social stuff as someone without a social disability, they may find social situations draining, etc, but they can improve.
People with ASD [0] often have poor social intuition, but they can learn to think consciously about things which other people can identify intuitively. There's no reason why Stallman couldn't do that as well. Sometimes, given enough time, what first had to be learnt consciously can become more automatic, even intuitive.
Has Stallman been taking actions to try to improve as a result of this public controversy? No idea. But it is at least possible he has. Maybe he's been seeing a therapist. Maybe he's even shared that fact with the FSF board, and maybe they've taken that into account in their decision to reinstate him, but of course it wouldn't be appropriate for the FSF board to share that kind of private medical information publicly.
Of course, we also have to consider the fact that he is 68. Increasing cognitive rigidity is a natural consequence of ageing, and people can find it harder to change ingrained habits at 68 than if they were 20 or 30 or 40 years younger. Even so, I don't think being 68 makes change impossible, just harder.
[0] I'm not saying Stallman has ASD, simply that he may. Quite a few years ago he publicly expressed the opinion that he doesn't have ASD/autism/Asperger's, but I don't believe that was based on a professional evaluation, simply a case of "self-undiagnosis". Also, his comments demonstrate he doesn't have a good understanding of ASD, so I don't think his "self-undiagnosis" should be given a lot of weight. He obviously has signs of broad autism phenotype (BAP), but whether it is just BAP or whether it is ASD is something which only a professional can answer. BAP is not a clinical diagnosis, it is a very common subclinical condition. I don't think the BAP-vs-ASD boundary is important for this discussion – people with BAP have many of the same issues that people with ASD do, just to a milder and less disabling degree.
If they had, it would be a good idea to have written into the press release.
"Of course, we also have to consider the fact that he is 68. Increasing cognitive rigidity is a natural consequence of ageing, and people can find it harder to change ingrained habits at 68 than if they were 20 or 30 or 40 years younger."
So you think someone with cognitive rigidity who can't change his habits is a good fit for a leadership role?
If someone discloses to their employer that they are seeing a therapist, it would be inappropriate for their employer to put that disclosure in a press release. (Board members aren’t technically employees but I think the principle is the same.)
> So you think someone with cognitive rigidity who can't change his habits is a good fit for a leadership role?
If the FSF board wants to give him the opportunity to demonstrate an ability to change, why shouldn’t they? Also, they are much better judges of whether he is trying to change, and whether or not he’s having success in that, than external observers such as you or I can be. They are engaged in communications with him to which the general public are not privy
Because of the forseeable adverse impact on other people to whom thet are responsible?
> Also, they are much better judges of whether he is trying to change, and whether or not he’s had success in that, than external observers such as you or I can be.
The at least one FSF board member who departed, and the FSF’s management who likewise resigned over the issue, OTOH, are in at least an equally good position to the Board members who supported the move.
Some people don't want to have anything to do with an FSF in which Stallman is still involved. Other people don't want to have anything to do with an FSF in which Stallman is definitely excluded. Whatever they do is going to have an adverse impact, so they have to make a judgement call.
> The at least one FSF board member who departed, and the FSF’s management who likewise resigned over the issue, OTOH, are in at least an equally good position to the Board members who supported the move.
I don't know if we should interpret their resignation as a judgement that Stallman can't change (or isn't interested in changing), or as an expression of the view that other factors are more important in deciding whether he should be on the board than that one.
In principle yes, but not if that was the reason the person could not have the leadership role in the first place.
"Is it okay if I put your private medical information in our press release?"–many people would view that question as inappropriate to even ask.
Yes.
But I didn't say it is appropriate, me saying this was only in your head.
Stallman's views hurt people in the sense that some people got offended that he believed in things that they did not. None of his views could hurt people in any other way, he never posted any racist/sexist/transphobic/etc views.
Downvotes are not cancelling. Downvotes won't get you fired. Nobody will bully you for being downvoted (or even having this opinion really). They just show that people find your argument dishonest or disagree with you.
Does ADA require an airline to employ a blind pilot? Besides allowing his service dog?
This essay starts with reason and ends with a slapstick statement equivalent to Walmart being required to keep employing a greeter with (movie cliche type) Tourette’s.
There is no defined end to this non judicial punishment, especially not in this case where there has been no improvement in the cause and apparently there never will be. It’s not for mr. Perens to decide differently.
And he did it because of the very qualities he is vilified now: persistence, pedantry, having strong opinions.
This entire focus on his supposed personal failings is a distraction. Even if RMS had completely reformed his behavior, he should not be running the FSF —- someone with a vision for the FSF that is still relevant should be in charge.
I would also like to hear your ideas what should a "vision for the FSF that is still relevant" include? It will be OK for me if you will please kindly tell what is wrong with current 'FSF vision'.
And now: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/CAHk-=whA6zru0BaNm4u...
Or as a more personal example, I will not contribute directly to any open source projects under the FSF umbrella because I won’t deal with their obnoxious contributor agreement process. As far as I can tell, the world and the FSF gain nothing except maybe prestige from this process, but they definitely keep contributors away.
Also, you probably do not understand the mindset of this movement. It is not a priority to have the best and shiniest toys and instruments. It is about freedoms, and freedoms only, even despite this way will cause significant inconveniences. It is unacceptable to compromise even the slightest part of freedoms to provide better convenience. This path is not for everybody, but I'm glad someone walks on it, if only to be a safeguard against abuse done by major software vendors. And FSF is very successful in acting as such.
> because I won’t deal with their obnoxious contributor agreement process
This process is in place for a very valid reason, perfectly explained here [1].
I’m pretty sure that almost everyone involved thought that the IR approach was technically superior. This included the people writing the code and the people who wanted to use the code. The FSF’s dedication to the cause caused a bunch of users to move to LLVM, which is not GPL.
As for the copyright assignment, the amount of paperwork and annoyance when I tried to sign up was absurd, so I gave up.
Clearly he can.
We don't need another infiltrated Linux Foundation.
1. RMS is not being punished by the FSF.
He does not have any right to a particular job, even as the founder of an organization. Many people, including FSF board members, believed he was not competent to serve the organization in a leadership role.
One could argue about whether getting excoriated on social media is a "non-judicial punishment". Perens seems to be decrying a rush to judgment, contrasting it with jury duty. But the most damning criticism is coming from people who worked with RMS closely, and who for years even shielded him from the consequences of his own actions. These people have thought long and hard about their experiences.
2. RMS is not obviously asking for any understanding nor promising to be better.
RMS has publicly described himself as having autistic characteristics. He seems to be saying he's sub-clinical. But, if he believes that this is the source of his difficulties, this is a private matter between him and his employer. So, our ability to judge here is limited.
However, at least from public statements, he does not seem to be invoking that defense, or asking for understanding. In fact, he doesn't seem to be even interested in any harms he has caused. Surely this would be step one?
Perens may well believe that RMS' problem is autism. But it matters what RMS believes and does. If he really has a disability but is denying it has any impact, this is even more of a reason to remove him.
3. Frankly this entire argument does such a disservice to the many men and women who live with autism/Asperger's Syndrome. A lot of them do struggle with norms. But they also feel bad when they inadvertently cause others pain. And most of them find a modus vivendi with others. This seems very unlike how RMS' interactions have been described, including to me by people who've worked with him, and what I've also personally seen at public events.
4. Personally it makes me very sad that we're having this argument. I don't take any pleasure in seeing RMS removed from a position of honor. I think he's one of the greatest thinkers of his time, and documents like "The Right to Read" ought to be in textbooks. There ought to be a place for RMS in our discourse. Just not this one.
Oh, has he? Last I heard he actually rejected that. When did he openly call himself autistic?
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
You can't apologize once there is a mixture of 10% truth and 90% defamation.
The libelous press will then print that the target has apologized for 100%, and therefore has validated the libel.
No offense but I find this argument to be in bad faith. You would not say that for someone being fired due to being lgbt, would you? (whether it is legal or not is irrelevant here as this is about moral rights)
He was not ostracized because they found him "not competent to serve the organization in a leadership role" but rather because they were outraged at his opinions (combined with a misrepresentation of his statements along with lies and half-truths -- the pleasure cards, the mit office label, etc).
>Many people, including FSF board members, believed he was not competent to serve the organization in a leadership role.
It would be great if these people too didn't try to misrepresent what he said. Such as in http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
Reasonable accomodations are wheelchair ramps so they can enter your building, elevators for people who can't climb stairs, and changing your user interface so that people who can't see colors can operate it and people who can't see at all can use screen-readers.
Where is the line to unreasonable accomodations? When a person permanently cannot do the essential features of the job: if you do not have a minimum physical strength and endurance, you cannot be a firefighter. If you can't comply with driving laws, you can't be a truck driver.
And in the case of the FSF Board, I would argue that when RMS persistently behaves badly in public over the course of decades, he can't represent that organization in the way that thwy want to be represented.
But all that is bullshit, because while I'm sure RMS feels like he's being punished, he has had decades to address this problem and he just isn't interested or capable. Either way, it's not a matter for the ADA -- and if RMS thinks it is, he should take it up with the ADA and settle that.
Perens' argument is lacking.
My feelings on RMS is that he should not be on the board, and he should directly participate on any "official" communications channel, be it email or code reviewing. Rather, a channel should be provided for him to respond, and within that channel should be a process to capture the essence of the response that is important without the offensive bits.
Stallman was removed because many found his presence unacceptable to their continued participation. Having removed him, that remains the case.
In addition to being poorly reasoned, this article is also somewhat contradictory. First, it argues that shunning should be temporary because the shunned must be given a chance to prove that they have reformed their behavior. Then it argues that Mr. Stallman's behavior is clearly based in his handicap and accommodations must be made for it. These two arguments don't work together. If he can control his behavior, his handicap need not be accommodated. If he cannot, there is no point to reassessing whether he has reformed.
I was sat 1 meter away from Bruce at a convention when Stallman had stood up to interrupt the presentation from some marketing woman from google on a point of principle regarding an error she made in speech about the BSD license). He then turned his ire on Perens and publicly admonished him for his more pragmatic views on something related that I have now sadly forgotten.
I mention only to say i know the kind of treatment Bruce got from Richard as I was in the sightline of the pointing and the high pitched unmistakable loud voice calling him out in a room of hundreds of people.
He just laughed it off with a gesture. He seemed very affable and polite in our brief conversation.
edit a google has turned up someone who took notes including some of the detail i gave above
A bunch of Internet strangers shunning you or calling you names can be distressing, but is mostly inconsequential. The problem starts when the crowd issues or implies a threat - threat of weaponizing this "key part of having a free market" against organizations associated with the victim. Threat of amplifying a negative message to a larger crowd still, to the point it could impact a company's bottom-line, a foundation's mission. Only then the victim is being cancelled, as the groups around them cut ties to save themselves.
First of all, nobody has ever actually diagnosed RMS and he himself has rejected that folk diagnosis when offered to him. If dude wanted psychiatric help, he could get it.
Second of all, the diagnosis, if it were accurate, is no excuse. Lots of people on the spectrum know how to behave.
Finally, even if was autistic and even if we could excuse his behaviour by his autism, he's not fit to be in any kind of leadership position. Yelling at people when they use the wrong words, which is his main and constant strategy, does not help the cause of free software. Technological self-abnegation, while giving him an aura of sainthood, does little to actually put free software in the hands of users.
Stallman can keep blogging if he wants, he can keep up his self-abnegation, but he doesn't have to be in the decision board of the FSF to do this.
Just to touch on this and not the other issues - many people who are diagnosable as having some problem refuse diagnosis, this does not mean they don't have the problem they could be diagnosed as having.
Arguably the reason you're using the term "free software" is because of RMS' incessant chastising. The only thing as relentless as RMS are the forces that continually eat away at the central thesis of his movement--the necessity for users to have access to the source code of the software they use as requisite for software freedom.
Does the movement need RMS going forward? I don't know. I'm not even sure it can stay as strong as it is, regardless of his participation. I have more certainty, however, that it wouldn't be as successful as it was and currently is without him. His conflation of the utilitarian and political character of software was rather unique. Even today the vast majority of people find the comparison either impractical, trite, or otherwise inapposite. Comparable concepts, like Lessig's "code is law", aren't quite the same and in any event haven't had the staying power.
It is called a spectrum because it contains a lot of different conditions that vary significantly.
>but he doesn't have to be in the decision board of the FSF to do this
Please re-evaluate this statement. One could as well use "you don't have to be in the decision board of the FSF to be gay". He certainly does not need to be in the decision board of the FSF to do this but you do not need to be in the decision board of the FSF to do pretty much anything.
I would argue that being in the decision board (instead of being the president) of the FSF is a good position for him. He can continue steering the FSF on things regarding software freedom, can continue giving his talks, and the face of the FSF will be someone who is more desirable by donors and deals with people better I guess?
On the extreme end, ADA does not insist on blind people being art gallery painting curators. ADA also does not insist on people with very little abstract thinking and logic being programmers. Accommodation does not mean that company have to put unsuitable people to positions. That includes influential positions and men/women who have severe social issues.
> Mr. Stallman likes women, but his interaction with them has been awkward and embarrassing in my personal presence, without ever reaching the level of forcing or violence.
From all I know, this is painting Stallman in even worst light then his detractors? I mean, this sounds much worst then you think. It is good that he never got criminal, but the workplace line really should be lower.
> his presence created an uncomfortable environment for women, which fits behavior I have witnessed
I think that sub-issue here is that why no one told him off, why he was not listened. People who merely dont understand can be dealt with, really, by frank and direct instruction. It more then just existing for those people to actually influence the culture around them - it takes cooperation of others, it takes them having actual influential power and being happy about creating uncomfortable environment. Whether for women or men.
That's an entirely reasonable theory. Would the FSF care to confirm it?
How come the FSF hasn't said anything about why Stallman is back on the board - not even an announcement? Why are they just making oblique references as if they're embarrassed by it?
If the entirety of the FSF's statements are a tweet saying that LibrePlanet speakers didn't know about Stallman's "announcement," a statement about "governance," and several resignations, how are they giving an opportunity for Stallman to demonstrate that he has reformed his behavior? Why not put out a simple statement saying that Stallman is back on the board for such-and-such reasons?
Frankly, if you looked only at the FSF's website and not at the rest of the internet, you'd be extremely confused what's going on and why there's a need for "work to improve governance at the FSF."
It'd be great if this were a "learning opportunity" for Stallman, if it admitted the "possibility of reform". The FSF has taken zero steps to make it happen, and they are destabilizing the free software movement all the while.
The entirety of the FSF top-tier management resigning over this (the people that actually would do the work of directing staff to put together an announcement, reviewing it, approving it, etc.) probably has some impact on the lack of a coordinate communication campaign from the FSF. The Board (whose also lost at least one member) doesn’t do the day-to-day work, or even directly manage that work.
The software world would be such a startlingly different place without him, this may be difficult to grasp for younger people. Things like Github may not even exist without him. I guarantee you a Github would not defend a youtube-dl in that RMS-free reality. Git itself wouldn't exist, or you'd have to pay for it. Even Git's creation story, via Linux, becomes unlikely in absence of a free software movement.
He created an entire world of software. Given how things are going, with software eating the world (rapidly accelerating over the past year), he may very well be responsible for creating the world as we know it going forward.
Everybody worships Steve Jobs because he wanted money. And people put up with his abuse because he made them money too. But there's no more money to be made from RMS, and his defenders are thinning.
It's so upsetting to see an old man's life work ripped from his hands, for him to be treated as a nuisance (rather than lionized), but the world is not a good place.
Has Stallman apologized for the behavior in question, or stated that he has in fact reformed? Or is this mere speculation?
Running their core product into the ground despite insane levels of funding?
Just make sure one chooses people based on agreeableness instead of based on merits an competence.
(Still a Firefox user, it still is better for my use but less so for each year and I really wish nobody had discovered that donation that got the Internet hate mob to mobilize against Brendan.)
Cancel culture is a great economic incentive to do better, but don’t use the name cancel culture and don’t apply it to Stallman because he has empathy problems, which are a handicap.
But I'm on the other side here. Personally, considering the sort of complaints leveled at the FSF (including the ludicrous nonsense that it's bad that one of the board members spends a lot of time and sweat on Wikipedia; or that RMS's toe-jam eating thing is some evidence of how he hurts people), I've flipped the bozo bit on these complainants. These are not evil things so even though some of those other things that are mentioned seem like evil things, if you mention these not-evil things in the same vein as the evil things, I am not going to believe you on either.
"Mr. Stallman’s behavior clearly has a basis in his handicap. "
This is a strong claim but seems to be made without any explaination or evidence and it is surprising that I see many here seem to accept that without questioning it.
Would an equivalent defense be made for Robert Long, that man who just murdered those Asian spa girls? I'm curious if there's a possible equivalence of what Bruce Perens is saying to that Georgia sherrif saying "He'd had a bad day". Seems like sympathy for perpetrators is reserved only for certain persons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Return_to_FSF
The original letter is signed by many of us who actually write the free software and who are part of GNU. I recognise people in the original letter I've collaborated on GNU software with, people I've met at conferences, people I've worked on bug reports with.
There are a few personalities in the counterletter, but if we're going by "jury of peers" there are far more peers in the original letter than the counterletter. The signatures in the two letters are a clear case of quantity vs quality.
Yeah, the quality of the signatories is obvious.
Sorry, but there really is nothing here.
Not everything is the same to everything else. Nuance and distinction is possible.
The anti-Stallman letter is signed by the usual SJW developers who jump at any chance to cancel someone. Some of these went straight to positions of power in projects without having contributed anything of value.
These developers represent less than 5% of projects, the other 95% either does not care or is scared to sign the pro-Stallman letter.
Precisely this; conversely, many people who signed the anti-Stallman letter were in positions where they would risk repercussions for not signing it, though it's (by design) hard to be sure to what extent that's why they signed it.
> either does not care
To be fair, I suspect >50% fall into this category.
Yes it was, the counterletter was posted on Russian forums a number of times, and it was regularly promoted in 4chan's /g/ too, where it was also drafted. There's probably still /g/ threads promoting the counterletter right now, as this is a cause celebre for 4chan. It's a 4chan-written letter promoted in the Russian-speaking internet. Russia has a well-documented state-sponsored homophobia and that attitude trickles down to many of her citizens in various ways.
The government enjoys sovereign immunity when it frees people who have served their jail time and it enjoys a monopoly of power. The FSF does not enjoy the same level of legal protection when RMS harasses women, nor does it have a monopoly on anything.
The point is that people (and corporations) should be more tolerant of the views of others. They are not required to agree, but they should not automatically push the "cancel" button. I don't agree with everything that Stallman believes (for example, GPL3), but I have no desire to shun him.
I will likely be modded down for expressing my next opinion: The same thing applies to those who support(ed) President Donald Trump. There was once a day when most US citizens would respect the office of President even when they did not hold the same views as the occupant. Why is there so much hate for those (47%?) who supported, or still support him and his political philosophies?
Is free speech dead? Are we back to the ways of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Mao? Should all non-conformant speech be cancelled? What will our future be like if that is the case?
Challenge the popular boy and girls? They'll whip up a mob all too desperate to show their "virtue" so they don't get the same treatment. Whatever the original issue is becomes impossible to discuss, you're either "for 'em or agi'n 'em".
Direct link: https://stallmansupport.org/ (it debunks various attacks against him)
2nd throwaway because tor accounts have a limited number of posts it seems.
All I can do is to try not to commit crimes [1] myself, lest I be similarly removed from employment, stripped of accolade, and banished forever.
[1] I'm LGBT and very open and inclusive with everyone (including democrats and republicans), but I seriously worry that eating meat might one day be frowned upon and punished.
edit: the idea that maybe we should give him a chance is persecuted, too. Nevermind that our entire careers are built on his shoulders and that no US court has found him guilty of a crime -- off with his head!
RMS publicly defended child rape. Someone like that should not get to define what freedom means.
RMS has all the right not to get attacked about his awkward behavior, but he has to feel the consequences on his ideological thought.
This little bit right here sounds fascist.
I'm not going to defend RMS' words or actions (I don't even know what the entire case against him is, and the more extreme this gets the less I want to pry into his personal life). I do think people are losing their minds to assassinate the guy.
RMS has given us our entire industry and careers. Without free software, you wouldn't have a job. I wouldn't either. Take a moment and let the gravity of that sink in.
(take a moment)
He apologized and spent several years away from the organization he founded. Why does it have to be the rest of his natural life? We're murdering him and taking his baby.
Why do people nowadays believe in permanent assassination of character? Unending punishment?
People have redemption arcs.
The stupid movies, books, and tv shows that everyone in this thread watches have forgiveness and grace in them. Why do we deny them to our fellow humans?
I'm an atheist, but Jesus preached against this kind of thing, and I think we could learn from some of his teachings. Throwing stones and forgiveness.
=========================================================
I got cut off by the Hacker News negative karma filter for the downvotes I got, but I typed out a comment I was pretty happy with. (It was to this comment [2]) I'll include it here instead:
> There ought to be a place for RMS in our discourse. Just not this one.
I'm trying to think of the limit of humanity here, when we're all living in the metaverse and aren't tied to physical bodies anymore. Complete freedom, and the ability to disassociate ourselves from our corporeal bodies. Assume new identities at will.
In the future, you'd ban the "RMS account" for misbehavior, but he'd be free to join again under a new one, free from the judgments and baggage of the old account. He'd just lack all of the accolades and gear he'd built up.
What you're doing now is calling for RMS permadeath in meatspace. He can't restart. It's game over.
Since there is no ability to restart IRL lives, why don't we have forgiveness as a feature?
The US penal system has a notion of when punishments have been meted out. He's stepped down for several years. Was it not long enough of a punishment?
Are we saying that some people may never forgive RMS? And that we're restricting his access indefinitely to satisfy the people who hold grudges eternally?
What sort of bug in humanity is that?
Maybe certain people think we should stop letting people out of jail.
September 2019 — March 2021 isn’t “several years”. Many of the othern elements of your description are similarly creative interpretations of the facts.
That's 16 to 18 months, not far from 24. This is such a nitpick.
Why don't you address the rest of my comment?
Well, dispatch the ideological police then.
After one person wrote that "Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Islands," Stallman responded, "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."
Minsky (and Minsky's wife) disputed the claims that he had sex with Giuffre. Stallman was not supporting child rape, he was objectively looking at how a local government can criminalize behavior that is not illegal in many other jurisdictions.
To be clear, Stallman was not supporting Epstein, and I am not supporting any of them, but Perens' point about Stallman being shunned because he was insensitive is spot on.
He explicitly supported a political campaign that aimed to immediately reduce the age of consent to 12 and ultimately eliminate it, on the basis that sex acts that were “consensual pedophilia” was not only not an oxymoron, but also something that wasn’t harmful.
(He also raised questions about rhe factual guilt of someone accused of nonconsensually sexually exploiting an Epstein-trafficked young woman, but that wasn’t where he defended child rape.)
No he absolutely didn't, certainly not explicitly. He linked to the news item and added a sentence of commentary, he did it for 3 news items that day and thousands over the decades.
It's right here, 2006-06-05: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html
The lowest age of consent is 16 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta...
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...